Showing posts with label Implicit Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Implicit Bias. Show all posts

Saturday, January 14, 2023

Ebony and Ivory: Education’s “Racial Divide” Cannot be Crossed Until We Can “Talk Like Friends”

 Dear Colleagues,

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

 

Introduction

   As we—in our nation’s schools and classrooms—enter a New Year of controversy, concerns, and challenges. . . disconnect, discontent, and disruption. . . confusion, conflict, and even crisis, everyone seems to agree that “something has got to change.”

   But what many disagree with is what specifically needs to change. . . and how and where to start.

   Not to be naïve, but as a psychologist who has studied bias and prejudice, and cognitive dissonance and social change, it seems that our biases change when we establish strong positive and personal relationships with people who are members of social groups that we do not know, have doubts about, or have negative attitudes (or worse) toward.

   For example, as we develop personal relationships with members of different cultures and religions, our initial prejudiced biases (if they existed) change.

   When we travel (physically or virtually) and develop personal relationships with those from different geographic or social-economic backgrounds, our initial prejudices or inaccurate perceptions (if they existed) change.

   And, when we develop personal relationships with those with different sexual orientations or disabilities, our initial stereotypes or biases (if they existed) change.

_ _ _ _ _

   This week, I want to highlight the ongoing “racial divide” in education—focusing largely on the adults in our schools.

   The effects of this racial divide is evident (for example) in:

·       The racially inequitable funding of education at a state and/or local level; 

·       The formal (before Brown v. Board of Education) and still informal segregation of our schools; 

·       The disproportionate academic and behavioral (e.g., office discipline referrals and school suspensions) disproportionality experienced by students of color; and 

·       The significant (again, dating back at least to the “integration” of our schools following Brown v. The Board of Education) gap in the number of Black educators, related service professionals, and administrators in our nation’s schools and districts.

   Along with this Blog, one of the ways that I wanted to highlight the atrocities above was to discuss it on Larry Jacob’s Education Talk Radio with my good friend Dr. Deborah Crockett. Deb was the first African-American President of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), and she founded NASP’s Minority Scholarship Program back in 1991.

   Deb and I have been colleagues and friends since (before) I was the President of NASP over 30 years ago. More importantly, she (as an African-American woman) and I (as a White male) have worked together and challenged each other through debates, agreements, and periodic disagreements on the difficult issues of race and education over the years.

   For me, the underlying reason why I wanted Deb and I together on Education Talk Radio was to reinforce how personal relationships allow us to bridge education’s “racial divide” because we can talk as friends.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Backwards to Go Forward—I

   It was a great disappointment to hear that, during her first days as the new Governor of Arkansas last week, Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed an Executive Order to Prohibit Indoctrination and Critical Race Theory in Schools.

   While couched in language that suggests her concern with “traditional American values of neutrality, equality, and fairness,” this action is remarkable in that, like similar legislation and executive orders in other states, this Executive Order (a) does not define Critical Race Theory (CRT) or its specifically “offensive” components, and (b) does not demonstrate that CRT even exists in Arkansas schools, and yet it (c) does suggest that CRT is discriminatory—even as many of the discriminatory and inequitable atrocities discussed above exist in many Arkansas’ schools and were not addressed during the 18 years that I lived there.

   Significantly, at least two of our Blogs discussed the realities of CRT, and the impact of the national debate around its existence well over a year ago.

December 4, 2021  Will the Controversy Over Critical Race Theory Damage Students’ Pursuit to Better Understand Cultural, Racial, and Individual Differences? Is Our Nation At-Risk. . . for Different Reasons than in 1983?

[CLICK HERE to LINK to BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

July 31, 2021  The Critical Common Sense Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color: This is NOT About Critical Race Theory (But We Discuss It)

[CLICK HERE to LINK to BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

   In the end, it is uncertain why Governor Sanders would sign one of her first Executive Orders about an issue that is largely dated and defunct at this point.

   Nonetheless, this Executive Order appears to represent a politically-motivated action that will—intentionally or unintentionally—maintain or exacerbate the racial divide in Arkansas’ schools to the detriment of students and staff.

   In short, and consistent with the theme of this piece, this Executive Order will make it more difficult for Black, White, and other educators of color to openly and comfortably discuss issues of race and culture, relating these discussions to the effective and collaborative instruction and support of the multi-racial mix of students who they teach.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Backwards to Go Forward—II

   Before returning to the theme of how personal relationships allow us to cross education’s “racial divide” (because we can talk as friends), let’s recognize that challenging problems are solved with both sound strategies and the collaborative interactions that ensure their implementation with integrity.

   Relative to the former, previous Blogs have discussed, for example, both the unsound and sound strategies used to address disproportionate disciplinary practices in our schools—a core manifestation of inequity for students of color and with disabilities.

   Addressing the unsound (largely, policy-driven) “strategies” that many states and districts have tried (but that have not decreased this inequity), we point to the following Blog.

September 25, 2021  How Have Districts Tried and Failed to Eliminate Disproportionate Discipline Rates for Students of Color and With Disabilities? It’s Not About the Plan, It’s About What’s IN the Plan. . . and the Most Frequently Recommended Strategies Do Not Work

[CLICK HERE to LINK to BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

   Relative to the latter, we have shared a number of evidence-based research-to-practice student, staff, and classroom strategies that do significantly decrease disproportionate disciplinary actions with students of color and with disabilities.

August 14, 2021  The Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color Do Not Require Anti-Bias Training: Behind Every Iron Chef is an Iron-Clad Recipe (Part II)

[CLICK HERE to LINK to BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

July 9, 2022  Reviewing Three New Studies on Student Discipline, Disproportionate Office Referrals, and Racial Inequity. It’s Not about School Shootings! It’s about Recognizing What Needs to Change in our Classrooms

[CLICK HERE to LINK to BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

   But critically, even the best strategies can be undermined by half-hearted implementation due to insufficient staff commitment and collaboration.

   Indeed, when effective and proven practices to improve schools’ racial disproportionality and inequity are implemented by staff who are racially separated on personal and professional levels, they have a limited chance of long-term and sustained success.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Establishing Connections between Racially Different Staff in Schools

   While they may be a start, there is now enough evidence that formal professional development, in-service, or “self-awareness” workshops or programs—focused on multi-cultural history, awareness, sensitivity, or “culturally-competent” interactions—in and of themselves—do not successfully impact issues related to implicit bias and high-quality, day-to-day interactions between Black and White (and other) educators.

   For a summary validating this statement, please see our past Blog:

December 5, 2020  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 to BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

   At the same time, White educators do need to know and understand the historical events related to and that impact implicit and explicit bias, and the challenges of “growing up Black in America.”

   Included here is the reality of White Privilege, and—as but one example only—the fear felt in Black families even when their children and adolescents simply walk out of their front doors to do an errand.

[SEE our Past Blog—with two Videos that EVERYONE should watch}:

September 5, 2020  Celebrating Our Labors on Labor Day . . . While Recognizing the Contribution of White Privilege

[CLICK HERE to LINK to BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

   Conversely, Black educators should also understand the power and impact of others’ implicit biases. . . and that, by their very nature, these biases are largely hidden to those who express or enact them.

_ _ _ _ _

   A September 6, 2022 Education Week article, “Why Can’t We Talk to Each Other Anymore? How Binary Thinking Is Dividing the K-12 World,” discussed some of the psychological processes affecting difficult discussions in today’s schools.

   The article began (with minor edits):

Watching all this binary, dichotomous, either-or thinking play out in K-12 education over the past few years has been frustrating. . . It has been one of the ugliest periods of factionalism in the United States I have witnessed in my 59 years.

 

And it got me thinking: Why do we do this? Why is it so bad now? And, most importantly, how do we move past this rigid way of thinking and behaving so it doesn’t get in the way of meaningful and effective teaching and learning?

 

Turns out, the answer to the first question begins with how our brains work. For most of us, our tendency is to jump to conclusions with limited evidence. In other words, the first mistake our minds make is to move too quickly. This, in turn, denies us the opportunity to consider the nuances of a problem or issue. Some of us engage in this kind of thinking more than others—but we all do it.

 

Thinking, Fast and Slow, a book by Daniel Kahneman, a professor emeritus of psychology and public affairs at Princeton University and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, offers a fascinating look into what drives this way of thinking.

 

“The confidence that individuals have in their beliefs depends mostly on the quality of the story they can tell about what they see, even if they see little,” Kahneman writes in the book. “We often fail to allow for the possibility that evidence that should be critical to our judgment is missing—what we see is all there is.”

_ _ _ _ _

   The article continues, eventually introducing the social psychological concept of “fundamental attribution error.”

That leads us to a concept in social psychology called “fundamental attribution error.” It is why people mistakenly assign the root cause of an observed behavior to the person’s character or personality, rather than something about their circumstances or a mix of their personality and circumstances. That explains the widespread use of personal attacks by extremists on social media or why people of opposing viewpoints can’t debate an issue without flinging personal insults at each other. . .

 

Herein lies the problem: When we engage in fundamental attribution error that focuses too heavily on a person’s character or personality—without engaging in “slow” thinking to consider their situations or circumstances—it is much easier to get frustrated and angry with that person. And that’s when the pointless name-calling starts at school board meetings and on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media.

 

[CLICK HERE for the Entire Article]

_ _ _ _ _

   In the end, one of the ways to traverse the Black-White staff divide in schools today (if it exists) is to have the conversations and experiences that help everyone to set the norms that reinforce an ongoing “consideration of each other’s situations or circumstances” during professional and personal interactions. . . so that relationships built on trust and understanding can evolve.

   While this is easy to say and more challenging to do, School Leadership Teams need to continuously discuss, survey, assess, and plan formal and informal activities so that all staff “get to know each other” on multiple—including racial, religious, cultural, and generational—levels.

   Grade-level (or departmental) teams, cross-grade level (or trans-disciplinary) teams, and individual staff members need to similarly take the steps necessary to “cross both professional and personal bridges”. . . getting to know each other as colleagues, community-members, and as just plain “folk.”

   This is yet another challenge for most educators during their already-overloaded days and weeks. But these personal relationships can make these days and weeks easier—especially when racially uncomfortable, inequitable, inappropriate, or biased interactions or events (inside or outside the school) occur.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Personal Finale

   As referenced earlier in this Blog, my good friend Dr. Deborah Crockett, the first African-American President of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and the Founder of NASP’s Minority Scholarship Program back in 1991, and I were together on Larry Jacob’s Education Talk Radio this past week.

   While the topic was Recruiting Minorities to Education and Mental Health Professions, I wanted to use the program to emphasize three things:

·       As states continue to politicize racial differences in ways that are insensitive to Black history, culture, and lived experiences, the recruitment and retention of Black educators and mental health service providers—even into professional training programs—will suffer. 

Said a different way: Why would you go somewhere where you are not wanted, respected, valued, and comfortable?

·       That the recruitment and, especially, retention process of Black educators and mental health professionals will succeed on the strength of Black and White educators' ability to talk with each other. . . especially when—as above—racially inequitable, biased, inappropriate, or uncomfortable interactions or events (inside or outside the school) occur.

·       Without putting either of us on a pedestal, I wanted the way that Deb and I communicated and interacted on the radio program to provide a model of Black-White respect and collegiality.

_ _ _ _ _

      To be sure, Deb and my mutual respect and collegiality is anchored by a personal relationship that is grounded in:

·       Our shared personal and professional experiences

·       Our willingness to recognize our racial (and gender) differences, and to question and learn from each other when we “know that we don’t know”

·       Our ability to discuss the underlying reasons for the success of our cross-racial relationship, and to sensitively “call each other out” when our implicit biases cause interactions that are inadvertently inappropriate

·       Our trust in each other—recognizing that neither of us would do anything to consciously or willingly hurt each other, and that many of our interactions are not race-related, they now are “Howie and Deb”-related

_ _ _ _ _

   I believe that these characteristics come across in our interview (see the YouTube version below).

   In addition, note that Deb, Larry, and I talk discuss some ideas on how to recruit and keep minorities in education—both in the classroom and as mental health support professionals. . . especially school psychologists.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Clearly, there are many layers and strategies needed to bridge the professional and personal gaps between Black and White educators. While some schools have few or no gaps in this area, given the political climate of the past few years, the ongoing existence of academic gaps for students of color, and their disproportionate treatment relative to school discipline, any existing successes require critical and ongoing attention.

   As noted, a great deal of research has concluded that formal professional development, in-service, or “self-awareness” workshops or programs—focused on multi-cultural history, awareness, sensitivity, or “culturally-competent” interactions—in and of themselves—have not successfully eliminated implicit bias and its effects on the day-to-day interactions between Black and White (and other) educators.

   This Blog has emphasized that, ultimately, any effective approaches or strategies need to be complemented and driven by the personal relationships between Black and White educators.

   While needing both formal and informal sustained interactions, until Black and White educators can talk “as friends,” racially inequitable, biased, uncomfortable, or inappropriate interactions or events (inside or outside the school) will likely be unresolved, increasing the potential to negatively impact school climate, building and grade-level staff interactions, and the quality of instruction and student support.

_ _ _ _ 

   As always, I appreciate everyone who reads this bi-monthly Blog and thinks about the issues or recommendations that we share.

   I again wish all of you a “Happy New Year” on both a personal and professional level.

   We have five to six more months to positively impact our students, staff and colleagues, schools, and other educational settings. While many districts are already planning for the future (i.e., the 2023 – 2024 school year), we still need to understand that the “future is now.”

   If I can help you map out your future—for example, in the areas of (a) school improvement, (b) social-emotional learning/positive behavioral discipline and classroom management systems, and (c) multi-tiered (special education) services and supports—feel free to contact me to begin this process.

Best,

Howie

 

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

Saturday, July 11, 2020

Do Black and Students with Disabilities’ Lives Matter to the U.S. Department of Education?


Institutional Bias, Power-Based Decisions, and Ineffective Practices?


Dear Colleagues,

Is Institutional Bias Driving the U.S. Department of Education?

Friday, July 10, 6:14 AM

   I rolled over in bed this morning and began to think about my 9:00 AM conference call with officials from the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE).

   Even though I had only slept about 5 hours, my mind started racing with thoughts about the call, and I realized there was no way I was going to fall back asleep.

   My conference call is with Angela Arrington, the Deputy Privacy Office at the USDoE who oversees Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the public. Also scheduled on the call are Gregory Campbell who is an FOIA Coordinator in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Nicole White, a Competition Manager in the Office of Safe and Supportive Schools, and Kelly Patrick, who works in the same office as Nicole.

   At its core, the essence of the call is the five-year USDoE School Climate Transformation Grant that was awarded to 69 school districts or collaboratives on October 1, 2019.

   The specific purpose for the call is to clarify an FOIA request that I submitted to the USDoE about four months ago to get information that may validate the existence of a potential conflict of interest within the Department. Indeed, I believe this conflict has existed within the USDoE (and, especially, its Office of Special Education Programs— OSEP) for at least 20 years. While it has shifted to the Office of Safe and Supportive Schools, the conflict remains the same.

   The conflict of interest concerns the funding and singular advocacy and promotion by the USDoE, OSEP, and now Safe and Supportive Schools of the National Technical Assistance Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and its PBIS framework...

. . . and, through that promotion and framework, the ineffective social, emotional, and behavioral practices for students across the country for at least the past 20 years—especially, students of color and with disabilities.
_ _ _ _ _

   But as my mind was racing, before I got out of bed this morning and ran to begin drafting this Blog message on my computer, I began to integrate two previously-disparate thoughts.

   First, I thought of a communiqué, 2020 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA, published on June 25, 2020 by OSEP that announced that (a) fewer than half of the states in our country are in compliance with federal special education law (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—IDEA), and (b) just 21 states “met” these requirements for the 2018-2019 school year.


   Parenthetically, as a former Director of an OSEP grant for 13 years with the Arkansas Department of Education, I can tell you that one critical area where most states are out of compliance with IDEA involves the disproportionate discipline referrals and suspensions of students of color and with disabilities.

   The second thing that I thought about was the whole area of disproportionality, inequity, and the institutional racism that has existed for 400 years in this country—racism that contributed to the recent deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and too many others.

   Here, I began to wonder whether there is implicit racial bias within the USDoE, and if this bias is influencing some of its policies, practices, and decisions. . . and actually contributing to the poor special education (and other educational) results in our states and schools.
_ _ _ _ _

   I have written about issues of educational inequity and disproportionality in many previous Blog messages. Rather than lose the main thesis of today’s discussion, please feel free to read the most recent Blogs validating these important concerns in our schools today.

[CLICK HERE to see:

April 11, 2020. The Pandemic Unearths the Raw Reality of Educational Inequity and Disparity: COVID-19 Forces Us to Realize We Need to Change the Village]

[CLICK HERE to see:

November 23, 2019. Maybe It’s the (Lack of) Money that Explains the Relationship Between Black-White Achievement Gaps and Disproportionate Disciplinary Suspensions?]
_ _ _ _ _

   Both of the thoughts above converged as I prepared for my USDoE conference call, and I also wondered:
  • Why has disproportionality, racism, equity, and student achievement (especially for students of color, English Second Language students, and students with disabilities) not significantly improved in education when. . .
  • The National PBIS TA Center has especially focused on improving cultural competence, equitable practices, and school discipline and behavior management expertise in our nation’s schools since its funding by the USDoE (through OSEP) from 1997 to the present?
   Knowing many of the dominant OSEP and National PBIS TA Center “players” since 1997, I then wondered (with all due respect to my colleagues):
  • If their implicit biases, and their willingness to embrace a scientifically-flawed framework that has not produced consistent, widespread, and sustained results for students, staff, and schools (for over 20 years) are contributing to the lack of student, school, and state progress in their funded areas of focus.
   Said a different way:
  • Maybe USDoE staff are as responsible (as the states and districts) for the poor results reflected in the 2020 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA Report. . .
. . . because of the stubborn promotion of their own flawed PBIS and other (e.g., MTSS) frameworks. . .

Frameworks that many researchers and practitioners have expressed concerns about for many years?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Why People Stick to their Beliefs, No Matter What

   Critically, two of the psychological processes that best explain the hypothesized phenomenon above are: Cognitive Immunization and Confirmation Bias.

   A March 28, 2016 Psychology Today article, “5 Reasons Why People Stick to their Beliefs, No Matter What,” stated that Cognitive Immunization “helps to explain why some beliefs become even stronger when challenged. They also help to explain how we cannot let go of some beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.”

   The article continues, “In fact, one characteristic of strong and resilient beliefs is their internal logic and structure, even when they defy logical verification as a whole. As a result, believers come to arguments well-prepared, having become adept at using their Confirmation—the natural inclination to avoid any information that contradicts a strongly held belief, while seeking out information that strengthens it. 

   The article goes on to describe five research-based, psychologically-driven ways that people maintain and defend their beliefs even in the face of objective data.


_ _ _ _ _

Back to the FOIA Conference Call

   One of the reasons why I filed the FOIA request with the USDoE was because of its continuing practice of requiring districts awarded specific federal grants (funded by your tax dollars) to use the personnel from or affiliated with the National PBIS TA Center.

   This has most recently occurred with the last two five-year School Climate Transformation Grants (first from 2014 to 2019, and now with the second set of awardees starting this past October, 2019).

   The USDoE’s website describes the School Climate Transformation Grant as follows:

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The School Climate Transformation Grant—Local Educational Agency Program provides competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop, enhance, or expand systems of support for, and technical assistance to, schools implementing an evidence-based multi-tiered behavioral framework for improving behavioral outcomes and learning conditions for all students.

TYPES OF PROJECTS
Projects should: (1) build capacity for implementing a sustained, school-wide multi-tiered behavioral framework; (2) enhance capacity by providing training and technical assistance to schools; and (3) include an assurance that the applicant will work with a technical assistance provider, such as the PBIS Technical Assistance Center funded by the Department, to ensure that technical assistance related to implementing program activities is provided.

   While the USDoE emphasize that the words “such as” in the bolded sentence above “prove” that any viable PBIS-savvy technical assistance provider can be used by any grantee, their actual actions speak louder than their politically-correct assurances.

   Indeed:
  •  For the entirety of the first 2014 School Climate Transformation Grant, districts/SEAs awarded the grant were required to send representatives every year to the National PBIS TA Center’s October national conference.
For five years at this conference, not a single presenter who did not support and reflect the TA Center’s PBIS framework were invited to present at this Conference.

  • At the first Grant Directors’ Conference for the newly awarded 2019 School Climate Transformation Grants—held in Washington, DC earlier this year on January 27-28, 2020—grantees were made to listen to an entire day of USDoE-funded National PBIS TA Center and National SEL TA Center directors or affiliates who discussed only their Centers’ PBIS and SEL frameworks and the specific consultants (with e-mails included) who were available to provide (“free”) technical assistance services. 
Significantly, a number of grantees complained about the wasted time devoted to these “info-mercials,” and some felt pressured to change the directions of their already-approved and funded School Climate Grants to (a) conform to the TA Centers’ frameworks, and (b) use their consultants.

   For a comprehensive past and present description of the USDoE’s singular advocacy and promotion of its National TA Center’s PBIS framework, read the February 15, 2020 Blog article:

Did a Misguided U.S. Department of Education E-mail “Confirm” Its Improper Favoritism of the PBIS Behavioral Framework? Using the School Climate Transformation Grant to Misrepresent, Re-Brand, and Strong-Arm Educators toward Only “Department-Approved” PBIS Consultants.”

_ _ _ _ _

   Briefly connecting the dots between the USDoE’s actions and the Psychology Today article (both above), I would like to suggest that USDoE staff may be psychologically “sticking to their PBIS beliefs” (no matter what) by:

·   Isolating themselves from people who hold outside beliefs in order to shield their ideas from even the possibility of contrary voices and arguments.

·   Trying to reduce direct exposure to other beliefs and ideas that might challenge our own.

· Connecting their beliefs to powerful emotions. For example, deliberately scaring grantees with losing their funds (see the February 15th Blog) in order to shape their behaviors and steer them away from alternative PBIS approaches.

·   Associating with (creating) like-minded groups that work together to undermine rival beliefs and the groups proposing them. Remember the article’s point that: Academics have made this into a fine art under the rubric of the scientific method by highlighting the weaknesses in theoretical adversaries’ arguments while ignoring their strengths.

·  Immunizing their beliefs through repetition—in fact, over 20 years of repetition.

   But in executing these belief-defending actions, the USDoE staff involved are also denying millions of students and staff, and thousands of schools the information that may improve their science-to-practice approaches, and their school discipline, classroom management, and student self-management outcomes.

   Critically, this especially involves millions of students of color, ELL students, students living in poverty, and students with disabilities.

   And if the thesis of this Blog is accurate—even in small part—the USDoE’s “implicit bias toward practice” may inadvertently be exacerbating the implicit bias of racism in our schools.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Misuse of Political Power in Education

Back to the FOIA Conference Call

   Another reason for my FOIA request to the USDoE was to hopefully get to the bottom of a situation that I described in the February 15th Blog (please read that Blog for the entire description—including quotes from relevant e-mails between me and USDoE staff).

   Here is a brief summary of the situation:

   After I heard about the presentations at the January School Climate Transformation Grant Directors’ meeting in Washington, DC (note that I am the Outside PBIS Consultant on three of the 69 grants awarded), I decided to get clarification on what actually occurred.

   Hence, I e-mailed Carlette KyserPegram, the U.S. Department of Education’s Program Manager for the School Climate Transformation Grant in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Office of Safe and Supportive Schools.  I also copied Ms. KyserPegram’s supervisors in her office, as well as Frank Brogan, the Assistant Secretary in charge of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

   After a series of e-mails, the last one (on February 13, 2020) from Ms. KyserPegram stated:

Good Afternoon Dr. Knoff:

Attached please find the slides that you requested. 

As indicated in the attached slides, the PBIS TA center is a U.S. Department of Education grantee whose purpose is, among other things, to assist SEAs and LEAs that received or will receive School Climate Transformation Grants (SCTGs) with developing and implementing PBIS frameworks that are designed to keep students engaged in instruction and improve academic outcomes.

The PBIS TA center does not advocate for, fund or support the implementation of any singular approach to PBIS, and the Department does not endorse any particular product or model of PBIS.  As the Department funds the PBIS TA Center to provide no-cost technical assistance to SCTG grantees, the presentation (at the January Directors’ meeting) gave SCTG participants information about the Center’s resources and services available to them. However, SCTG grantees are free to use consultants of their choosing in addition to, or instead of,  the services of the PBIS TA Center, and this is what we communicate to grantees.  As I said in my earlier email, at no time during the meeting were grantees told they could not use consultants outside of those affiliated with the PBIS TA Center.

C. KyserPegram

  [ NOTE:  This is Ms. KyserPegram’s entire, unedited response. ]
_ _ _ _ _

   While the last statement in this e-mail was not the perception of many of the grant awardees at the meeting, with this sanitized, politically-correct, “we-follow-all-of-the-rules” response, I figured my communications with Ms. KyserPegram were done. 

   BUT. . . what happened next completely shocked me !!!
_ _ _ _ _

   At 3:43 PM on the same day—less than two hours after receiving Ms. KyserPegram’s response, I received the following unexpected and incorrectly routed e-mail from Rita Foy-Moss who is a Program Officer in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Healthy Schools.

   Sending the e-mail to Carlette KyserPegram, and copying it to Nicole White, Ms. Foy-Moss’ e-mail simply said:

   “Good show!
     Thank you.
      Rita”

   Seven minutes later, at 3:50 PM, Ms. Foy-Moss e-mailed me again, saying:

   “Foy Moss, Rita would like to recall the message “SCTG and the U.S. DoE’s Singular Promotion of the PBIS TA Center and Staff”—the title of the first-sent e-mail.
_ _ _ _ _

Analysis

   Clearly, Ms. Foy-Moss mistakenly included me on the first e-mail above.

   Just as clearly, she was positively reinforcing her colleague, Ms. KyserPegram for the e-mail that she sent to me earlier that day (quoted above).

   But what exactly was she reinforcing???

   To be fair, I have generated some hypotheses that might explain Ms. Foy-Moss’ cryptic message reinforcing Ms. KyserPegram’s original e-mail to me . . .


   Ultimately, whatever Ms. Foy-Moss intended, she must have been concerned (horrified???) enough about her e-mail “getting into the wrong hands” to have sent me a retraction within seven minutes.
_ _ _ _ _

Back to the FOIA Conference Call

   Ms. Foy-Moss’ e-mail is what prompted my FOIA request.

   In essence, I wondered if her e-mail represented a “smoking gun” that would uncover other USDoE memos or e-mails (acquired through the FOIA request) that would prove that the USDoE was not engaged in just Cognitive Immunization, Confirmation Bias, or Implicit Bias, but pure power politics.

   And if you believe that something like this would never occur in a federal agency like the USDoE, please know that the USDoE’s Office of the Inspector General proved (in 2006) that (from 2002 through 2006) USDoE staff planned, manipulated, and changed multiple state department of education Reading First grants to ensure that the nationally-proven Success for All Reading Program (and others) would never receive federal funding.

   The Reading First program involved over $6 billion dollars that went primarily to high-poverty Title I schools to improve elementary students’ reading skills. And the USDoE staff involved were the actual federal grant program directors overseeing the program.

   In fact, because of the identified USDoE staffs’ malfeasance, thousands of students nationwide were denied one of the most effective reading programs in our country’s arsenal.

   Moreover, Congress eventually de-funded the Program (for Fiscal Year 2009), in essence, to punish the USDoE, and because the integrity of the USDoE’s continued oversight of the program could not be assured.

   Critically, the Inspector General’s investigation started when Dr. Robert Slavin, the Program’s creator, filed an FOIA request with the USDoE that uncovered incriminating staff e-mails that demonstrated the bias against his Success for All Program.

[CLICK HERE to see the U.S. Department of Education’s Inspector General’s September 2006 Report on the Reading First debacle]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary: Effective and Ineffective Practice

Friday, July 10, 11:11 AM

   The FOIA conference call is over, but I have no news to report.

   It was a cordial, respectful, and professional call, and I believe that all of the USDoE staff on the call are dedicated to our nation’s students and schools, and to the mission of maximizing their academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes.

   But we will need to wait and see if the call was truly productive.

   On the call, I provided much of the same history that I have shared (above) with you. But at the beginning of the call, I suggested a resolution that would encourage me to withdraw the FOIA request, and the precious staff time needed to complete it.

   The core of my proposal was that the USDoE would agree to actively involve me in the relevant planning and evaluation sessions that would guide the functional implementation of the School Climate Transformation Grant for the next four-plus years.

   This would ensure that multiple “PBIS expert voices” would “be at the planning table” so that the districts and schools involved in the Grant Program would have the benefit of different, proven ways to positively impact school climate and student behavior.

   Included in this proposal also would be a USDoE agreement to involve me and other PBIS national experts—not affiliated with the National PBIS TA Center—as presenters and mentors at the required School Climate Transformation Grant Directors’ Annual Conferences.

   The USDoE leaders on the call agreed that they would bring my proposals to the Department’s Leadership Group.

   We will see what happens. . .
_ _ _ _ _

   My friends, please understand that my FOIA request and the proposals above are all about initiating, maintaining, and sustaining a systemic change of a social, organizational, and institutionalized culture within the USDoE (and across many state departments of education in this country) that has allowed a flawed framework to be promoted for too long.

   This culture has not occurred because of who is in power (i.e., the political party of the current President), but because of who is implementing the power (i.e., USDoE staff, some of whom have worked in the Department for up to four different Presidents—two Republican and two Democrat).

   While the change may begin with confrontation, it will ultimately succeed with collaboration.

   And the process toward success will not be pretty or linear, perfect or universal. Moreover, it will involve hard work and courage, compromise and dedication.

   While this PBIS and SEL School Climate Grant issue pales against the depth and breadth of the implicit, explicit, and historical issues of bias, prejudice, and racism embedded in the Black Lives Matter movement, I believe that the two overlap.

   Simplistically, they overlap because we need to systemically change the social, organizational, and institutionalized culture of racism that has occurred over the past 400 years. And part of this change must occur with changes in how we fund, successfully educate, and support Black and other students of color, ELL students, students with disabilities, and students from poverty.

   The PBIS framework has had over 20 years and millions of dollars of federal and state funds to demonstrate its ability to be part of this change process. It is now time to listen to some “new” voices.

   It also is time for some to (a) look in the mirror, (b) confront the reasons why—motivated by psychology, politics, or power—they are “sticking to their beliefs” (no matter what), (c) admit and apologize for their past behavior and decisions, and (d) re-focus and re-dedicate themselves to the children and adolescents in our schools and communities nationwide.

Best,

Howie