Are Schools Really Prepared to Address Educators’ Biggest Behavioral Student Concerns Right Now? (Part II)

“We’ve Got Serious Problems and We Need Serious People”

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

 

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

Students do not “mature” out of inappropriate behavior. . .

They need to be taught and learn appropriate behavior.

 

                                                                        Howie Knoff

_ _ _ _ _

   Last month, I delivered three presentations at The Model Schools Conference in Orlando. . . sharing my perspectives with over 5,000 attendees.

   Two weeks ago, my Blog (Part I of this Summer Series) discussed one of my Conference presentations, outlining the “Seven Sure Solutions for School Success”—an evidence-based blueprint that I implicitly or explicitly use when helping districts and schools solve some of their thorniest academic or behavioral student challenges.

[CLICK HERE to LINK to this BLOG]

   The Blog used the “Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full” metaphor to emphasize that—despite incremental accomplishments—we still have so much to do in our schools today.

   From an academic perspective, the Blog noted that too many schools publicly define their annual success as an increase in the number of students scoring Proficient or Above on their state standards tests in reading, math, and science. Significantly, many high schools add the percent of students graduating in four (or five) years to this perspective of “success.”

   And yet, using these definitions, the Blog “tipped the glass” and documented that—for example—on the 2023 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP):

·       Over 1.6 million 8th Grade students from the five highest NAEP-scoring states in the country were Below Proficient in Reading as they entered their first year in high school; and

·       Over 2.1 million 12th Grade students from the five highest NAEP-scoring states in the country were Below Proficient in Math when they graduated from high school year.

   Significantly, these number were only from the five best-scoring states on the NAEP.

   These numbers did not include the five most populous states in the country: California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania. And, the 3.7 million deficient students—at just the two academic and grade levels above—exceeded the total individual populations from 23 different states (not combined. . . individually).

   So. . . even as some schools see the glass as half-full. . . the largest part of the glass remains half-empty.

   As Michael Douglas—playing “President Andrew Shephard” at a Press Conference in movie The American President (1995)—said in a memorable soliloquy:

“We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What about Student Behavior and School Climate?

   From a school climate and student behavior perspective, Education Week published an article last week (July 18, 2024) reporting the results of the most-recent School Pulse Panel survey organized by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This Panel has been used over the past few years to track the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the school and schooling process.

   Completed between May 14 and May 28, 2024, this survey involved 1,714 public school K-12 leaders from every state in the country and Washington, D.C.

   Education Week reported the following summary statements from those who completed this NCES survey:

·       83% reported that the pandemic and its lingering effects continue to negatively influence the socioemotional development of students;

·       75% reported that students’ lack of focus or inattention had either a “moderate” or “severe” negative impact on learning during the 2023-24 school year;

·       21% reported that students were academically unprepared for school (e.g., not doing homework, not bringing necessary supplies);

·       19% reported students being disruptive in the classroom (e.g., calling out, talking to others during instruction, getting out of a seat when not allowed, leaving the classroom);

·       19% reported students not doing individual work;

·       18% reported students being physically unprepared for school (e.g., lack of sleep, not eating before school); and

·       16% reported students using cellphones, computers, and other electronic devices when not permitted.

   In addition:

·     57% of the schools surveyed reported confiscating some type of substance from students during the 2023-2024 school year;

·        45% reported having confiscated a weapon from students during the year;

·    36% reported that student acts of disrespect toward teachers or staff members, other than verbal abuse, occurred at least once a week;

·    30% reported instances of cyberbullying that happened at and outside of school at least once a week;

·    20% reported that threats of physical attacks or fights between students occurred at least once a week;

·    18% reported bullying occurring at least once a week; and

·    17% reported students’ verbal abuse of teachers or staff members occurring at least once per week.

   NOTE: If 20% does not sound like a “disruptive” number, consider (a) what a classroom would be like if 1 out of every 5 students, for example, came to school without doing their homework or did not bring needed classroom supplies; or (b) what a school’s climate would be like with at least a weekly threat of a physical attack or student fight.

_ _ _ _ _

   The last reported data from the NCES survey revealed that:

·   76% of the public school leaders said they need “more support for student and/or staff mental health;”

 

·      71% need “more training on supporting students’ socioemotional development;”

 

·       61% need “more training on classroom management strategies;” and

 

·       52% said “more teachers and/or staff need to be hired.”

   All of this at a time when school finances are pinched and experienced teachers are hard to find.

“We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Serious Solutions Require Serious Science

   Given the breadth of the problems above, districts and schools need to look at themselves—especially as the new school year is about to begin—to determine:

·       Which (if any) of these problems exist in their settings and to what degree;

·       Whether the problems identified are independent or inter-related;

·       What problems can be or should be solved during the first days or weeks of the new school year;

·       How to do this in an evidence-based and self-sustaining way; and 

·       Who needs to be involved.

   Many times, districts and schools need an objective, independent perspective here, or they do not have the resources available to fully vet these issues and solutions. This is where an experienced outside expert can be beneficial. . . someone who can be direct and candid, and who will work in a short-term, solution-focused way.

   To begin this process, let me share and briefly comment on three quotes from my Model Schools Conference presentation, while recommending that you (re)read my Blog from last month:

“Does Your School’s SEL Program Teach Social Skill Behaviors, or Just Talk About What Students “Should Do”? If We Taught Reading the Way We Teach SEL, None of Our Students Would Learn How to Read”

[CLICK HERE to LINK to this BLOG]

_ _ _ _ _

Quote 1

“Students do not “mature” out of inappropriate behavior. . .

They need to be taught and learn appropriate behavior.”

   While some student behavior is developmental in nature, the first days and weeks of the school year should progressively teach students the different classroom and building routines. . . having them physically practice them during supervised “walk-throughs,” while providing supportive or corrective feedback when needed. This should especially be done with all preschool through (and including) new 9th grade high school students.

   All students (preschool through high school) also should learn and discuss the specific behavioral expectations in their classroom—and across the common areas of the school. In addition, they should also learn (or review) and discuss the different intensities of inappropriate behavior. . . that is, what specific behaviors are annoying, disruptive, antisocial, or dangerous or code of conduct offenses.

   Here, the behaviors need to be described in observable—not generic—terms. For example, “disrespect,” “disruptive,” or “defiant” behaviors need to be more behaviorally specified so that everyone is clear what these global terms actually refer to.

   The discussions, moreover, should be more peer-to-peer than adult-to-peer. Peers need to share how inappropriate behavior affects them academically and socially, and they need to make prosocial commitments to each other regarding the importance of appropriate interpersonal behavior. They also need to address and practice how to “call out” and resolve inappropriate peer behavior—even when it is unintentional.

   This is especially important for interactions that relate to gender, socio-economic status, race or culture, sexual orientation, or skill and proficiency. These discussions also should explicitly address individual, peer-related, in-person, or virtual (social media) teasing and bullying, intimidation and taunting, physical or sexual harassment, and micro- and macro-aggressions.

   Separately. . . when students continually demonstrate significant behavioral challenges, consistent with the quote above, it is important to recognize that “Talk alone does not change behavior.”

   That is, while “the talk” may clarify both the inappropriate behavior that should be eliminated and the appropriate prosocial behavior that is needed instead, the only way for students (or anyone) to learn, master, and be able to independently demonstrate the latter, appropriate behavior is:

·       To behaviorally teach and physically demonstrate the desired behavior;

·       Roleplay and practice it behaviorally with the student;

·       Continue to practice it behaviorally with the student using relevant, applied situations in the settings where they most often occur; and

·       Encourage independent behavioral student-practice so target behaviors become automatic and routine.

   Critically, students do not mature or age-out of significant inappropriate behavior. And, as above, they do not demonstrate appropriate behavior automatically even when they “know what they are supposed to do.”

   Moreover, sitting and talking in a “restorative circle”—while it may help clarify and personalize a socially inappropriate interaction—will not, in most cases, prosocially change the behavior the next time.

   By way of analogy, if you want proficient reading behavior, students need to learn, practice, and become automatic readers.

   If you want students to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping skills, they need to learn, practice, and become automatic in these behaviors.

_ _ _ _ _

Quote 2

“Why is anyone surprised that the science and practice of teaching students social, emotional, and behavioral skills. . . is any less sophisticated than teaching students literacy skills?”

   During my 40+ years in education as a school psychologist, I have seen more than enough haggling and acrimony relative to the “Reading Wars.” And yet, without over-simplification, the steps for teaching reading (not the teaching itself) have never been terribly complex for me as a scientist-practitioner.

   The goal of “the War” is to ensure that our high school graduates are literate. . . that they can truly understand the explicit and implicit meanings after they read (or listen to) different types of text.

   And to progressively—from preschool through high school—help students attain this goal, we need to interdependently teach them layers of phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills.

   Clearly, this involves sophisticated neurolinguistic, psychoeducational processes—some that we still do not fully understand. And while there may be a universal literacy instruction blueprint, it needs to be adapted or modified for some learners.

   But now turning to today’s focus. . . per the quote above, why would anyone think that teaching students social, emotional, and behavioral interactions is any less complex than teaching them reading?

   And (drum roll, please). . . the resounding answer is. . . . it’s not!

   And that’s why it is especially frustrating when Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) is so inadequately described and operationalized in the popular press, as well as by some “researchers,” journal or book authors, and many vendors.

   As I have written in the past:

·       Too much of what educators say is “Social-Emotional Learning” is not; and

·       When educators are concerned that their “Social-Emotional Learning” activities or programs “are not working,” they need to first look at the curriculum and instruction. . . before concluding that this is a (continuing) “student problem.”

_ _ _ _ _

Quote 3

“Every time you do an intervention with a student and it doesn’t work. . .

You make that student more resistant to the next intervention.”

   Too often, educators—individually, in grade-level or instructional teams, or at a whole-school or district level—see what they think are “student problems,” brainstorm what to do about them, and then, choose a “solution” and proceed into implementation.

   When this is done without a root cause analysis—to truly and objectively determine why the problem exists—we call this “Intervention Roulette.”

   This is because this approach has a high probability of failing because (a) the target of the intervention is often a symptom, and not the “real” problem; and (b) the intervention is not well-matched to the root cause—as the root cause analysis step was either skipped or not completed with fidelity.

   The ultimate point here is that, “Interventions for social, emotional, and behavioral challenges are strategic, and not random.”

·       Brainstorming results in a random intervention that has a high probability of failure.

·       Root cause analyses—within the context of a data-based problem-solving process—results in high probability of success interventions.

   And yet, some educators still say, after brainstorming an intervention, “Let’s just try it. How much damage could it do?”

   The answer: A lot of damage.

   Not only will the intervention likely fail, but the implementation experience and failure may also:

·       Make the student’s problem worse, compound it, or make it more convoluted;

·       Put doubt in the student’s mind that s/he can successfully overcome the problem, and that the intervention team is competent and has his/her best interests at heart;

·       Make the intervention team think that the student has a more serious problem than originally thought; and/or 

·       Put doubt in the minds of the staff, who are working on the problem and its solution, that the student is committed to change, that the problem can be solved with the available resources or expertise, or that the problem can be solved at all.

   All of these potential outcomes—when a low probability of success intervention fails—result in an overt or subliminal level of resistance when the next intervention is tried.

   That is, when an intervention does not work, everyone may be “further behind” than when they started.

   The solution?

   Educators need to understand the potential implications of a failed intervention. They need to: (a) stop the implementation of any intervention  generated through brainstorming or unconfirmed speculation regarding why the problem exists; and, instead, (b) make sure that they do their “due diligence” through the data-based problem-solving process and its root cause analysis step—linking the results of an objective and high quality analysis to the selection of well-designed and high probability interventions.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog (Part II) revealed the many social, emotional, and behavioral challenges identified in a May, 2024 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) survey of 1,714 public school K-12 leaders from every state in the country and Washington, D.C.

   These challenges included students’ (a) lack of focus and lack of preparation for their classes; (b) classroom disruptions and the use of prohibited cellphones, computers, and other electronic devices; (c) verbal abuse and other acts of disrespect toward teachers; (d) (cyber)bullying and physical attacks or fights with peers; and (e) substance abuse and bringing weapons into school.

   This Blog reflected on the “solutions” suggested by the leaders surveyed by the NCES and, instead, recommended that individual districts and schools (a) objectively and independently analyze their own students, staff, data, and circumstances; and (b) decide which of the reported problems exist in their settings, why they exist, and which ones can be addressed as the new school year begins.

   To facilitate this process, three quotes from a recent presentation at the annual Model Schools Conference were presented along with their implications and importance to generating high probability of success interventions. . . so that the problems above can be effectively and expeditiously solved.

   The quotes emphasized the importance of:

·       Teaching students social, emotional, and behavioral skills;

·       Recognizing that this social-emotional learning instruction is as sophisticated as teaching students how to read; and 

·       Completing root cause analyses, for students with significant or persistent behavioral challenges, to determine the underlying reasons for their challenges, then linking the root cause results with high probability of success interventions.

_ _ _ _ _

   As we turn the “summer corner,” and begin thinking about the impending new school year, we hope that this Blog Series (and this current Part II) is helpful and relevant to you and your colleagues.

   While school finances across the country are tight, we all know that districts and schools benefit—both financially and, especially, relative to student, staff, and school outcomes—when they understand why they are successful and, conversely, why they are less successful.

   Sometimes, this requires on-site expertise from an outside partner.

   If you would like to explore whether I can be that partner, please drop me an e-mail (howieknoff1@projectachieve.info) or set up a free Zoom call so that we can look at your needs and desired outcomes. Together, I know that we can attain the short- and long-term, sustained successes that you and your students need.

Best,

Howie

 

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

Michigan Mother Found Guilty of Manslaughter in Her Son’s School Shooting

Should Schools Lean-In to Hold Parents More Accountable for their Children’s Behavior?

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

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   On November 30, 2021, fifteen-year-old Ethan Crumbley brought a 9mm semi-automatic handgun into his school, using it to murder four students and injure seven others—including a teacher. Charged as an adult with 24 crimes, including murder and terrorism, he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced two years later to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

   On December 3, 2021, James and Jennifer Crumbley—Ethan’s parents—were charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to secure the handgun used by their son. In fact, James had purchased the gun for Ethan four days before the shooting, and Jennifer was captured on security video leaving a shooting range the next day with Ethan and the handgun.

   According to testimony during Jennifer’s case, the two had been taking target practice in what she described on social media as a “mom and son day testing out his new Christmas present.” Ethan referred to his gun online as “My new beauty.”

   Critically, both parents knew that Ethan had mental health issues. Indeed, in the days before the shooting, school officials met with Crumbley’s parents to share a picture he had drawn of a gun, a bullet, and a person who had been shot twice and was bleeding.

   On the day of the shooting, Ethan was taken out of class and was interviewed by school personnel. And yet, despite the mental health concerns and the picture, both school personnel and his parents allowed Ethan to return to class that day—rather than sending him home. The shooting followed around 1 PM.

_ _ _ _ _

   Just this week, on February 6, 2024, Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter, and she now faces up to 60 years in prison. According to CNN,

 

With this verdict, Jennifer Crumbley became the first US parent of a school shooter to be held accountable for the slayings. Citing the prosecution, Crumbley was “grossly negligent” in handing out a gun to her son, Ethan.

 

Meanwhile, she never did anything to give her son proper treatment for his mental health problems. The prosecutors presented testimonies from law enforcement officials, shooting victims, school employees, and people who had known Crumbley.

 

“Even though she didn’t pull the trigger on Nov. 30 [2021], she’s responsible for those deaths,” said Oakland County (MI) assistant prosecutor Marc Keast. The parents “didn’t do a number of tragically small and easy things that would have prevented this from happening.”

   Jame Crumbley’s trial is scheduled in March. The parents’ trials were separated at their request. 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 When Schools Counsel Parents to Get their Children Counseling

   As a longtime school psychologist, I can remember countless parent conferences where we implored parents to get their children social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health help from community-based professionals. While we were providing services at the school, their children’s challenges were so evident across multiple settings, or so intense or unusual that our school-based mental health resources were not enough.

   Typically, these parent conferences focused on issues related to their children’s suicidal ideation, trauma, stress, anxiety, depression, fear, eating or sleep disorders, and more. But they also included issues related to anger, violence, hyperactivity, sexual misconduct, anti-social interactions, oppositional defiance, and cutting or self-mutilation.

   These conferences also often addressed (a) students’ sleep, diet, weight, exercise, and hygiene; (b) their organizational skills, motivation, homework completion, and school attendance; and (c) their social and emotional welfare, and quality and effectiveness of parent supervision.

   Significantly, during these conferences, we could only recommend outside services to our parents. . . we could not require them to act.

   In extreme cases, we might send the involved parents a certified letter documenting our concerns and recommendations. Or, we might report them to the local social service or child protective agency. These approaches, quite honestly, rarely changed the parents’ behavior, and they often further weakened our relationships with them.

   In other cases, some districts forbid their teachers, related service professionals, or administrators to even recommend outside services. . . because they fear that they then become responsible to pay for them.

   None of this serves our students in critical need well. They often do not get the needed community-based services and, as above, a school’s good faith efforts are sometimes unwelcome or interpreted as intrusive.

_ _ _ _ _

   With the Jennifer Crumbley decision this week, however, we wonder:

·       Will this decision move the pendulum toward greater parental accountability when schools recommend outside supports to address their children’s significant health, mental health, and wellness needs; 

·       Will the threat of litigation motivate these parents to take timely and effective action—consistent with the recommendations; and

·       Will schools become more assertive in their interactions with parents, especially when there is a documented threat of student, staff, and school violence?

   Only time will tell, but certainly schools and parents need to “sit up” and take notice.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What “Motivates” Parents to Follow School Recommendations?

   When I was a “little” school psychologist-in-training at Syracuse University, I spent two years as a practicum student with Dr. Tony Conti, a master school psychologist in the Westhill School District. Tony was kind, patient, wise, creative, an expert in so many areas, and my most-influential mentor.

   While he tragically died when he was 42, Tony also greatly influenced the field of school psychology... helping us especially to understand why parents follow (or don’t follow) our recommendations for outside services and support.

   Tony’s 1975 article, “Variables Related To Contacting/Not Contacting Counseling Services Recommended By School Psychologists,” was a first of its kind. It reported on the variables that most-predicted parents’ acceptance and follow-through on our school-based recommendations for counseling services for their children.

   Expanding on and updating Tony’s research for schools and districts in 2024, we now have a science-to-practice blueprint on how to best frame our parental recommendations so that they actually engage the community-based services needed—for a wide range of challenges—by their children.

   Reflecting on our earlier discussion: Would this blueprint have changed James and Jennifer Crumbley’s decisions (a) to not buy their son a gun; (b) to, at least, secure the gun so that it was completely inaccessible to their son; and/or (c) to get their son the mental health support that it appears he needed?

   We don’t know for sure.

   But any of these three decisions might have saved four students’ lives, seven students’ and teachers’ injuries, hundreds of students’ and families’ traumas, one now-seventeen year old adolescent’s lifetime in prison, and one (maybe, two) manslaughter incarcerations against two parents.

   And so. . . based on a search of past and current research, the factors that most influence parents to follow school personnel’s recommendations for community-based services include:

• Perceived Need: People are more likely to seek community-based services when they see their child’s need for emotional support, guidance, or problem-solving. When they recognize their child’s distress or struggles, they are more inclined to reach out for professional help.

• Stigma and Social Norms: Societal, community, friends, and family members’ attitudes associated with mental health services can impact parents’ decisions. Fear of judgment or negative perceptions may discourage some from seeking community-based, while others may prioritize their well-being regardless of societal norms.

• Awareness and Knowledge: Awareness about community-based services and their benefits is crucial. Parents who are informed about available resources are more likely to seek help. Lack of awareness or misconceptions can hinder access to community-based.

• Cultural Factors: Cultural beliefs, values, and practices influence help-seeking behavior. Some cultures may encourage seeking support from family or religious leaders—rather than community-based professionals. Competence and sensitivity are essential for effective discussions with parents from different racial, cultural, socio-economic, and other diverse backgrounds.

• Personal Coping Strategies: People with strong coping skills may rely on self-help methods or informal support networks. Conversely, those who struggle to cope independently may be more motivated to seek professional assistance.

• Severity of Symptoms: The severity of a child’s emotional distress, behavioral gaps, academic failures, or mental health symptoms plays a significant role in parents’ decision to act. Parents with children experiencing intense distress or persistent symptoms are more likely to seek professional help.

• Previous Experiences: Positive or negative experiences with community-based or mental health services can shape parents’ future decisions. A successful past community-based experience may encourage someone to seek help again, while negative encounters may deter them.

• Social Support: The availability of supportive friends, family, or peers can influence parents’ help-seeking behavior (positively or negatively). While perhaps counter-intuitive, strong social networks may provide emotional support, reducing the urgency to seek professional community-based.

• Financial and Practical Constraints: Practical considerations—such as cost, insurance coverage, transportation, and time availability—impact parents’ decisions to engage with community-based services. Limited resources or logistical challenges sometimes override parents’ understanding and commitment to their child’s needs.

• Trust in the Therapeutic Relationship: Initial trust and rapport with a community-based professional significantly affect long-term parental engagement and commitment. A positive therapeutic alliance encourages continued contact, while a lack of trust may lead to discontinuation.

_ _ _ _ _

   Clearly, in order to strategically select the “right” factors above and the best way to communicate them, school personnel must have the positive relationships, the experiential knowledge, and a history of collaborative interactions with parents who have significantly struggling or challenging children. As each situation is unique, there is no “tried and true” sequence or approach. . . each interaction must be individualized to each parent and child. 

   But beyond the blueprint, parents respond best when school personnel are empathetic, constructive, and future-focused. School personnel need to be seen as allies, and they need to be actively involved in removing barriers. For example, school personnel may need to vet and identify the best outside community resources for a specific student. They may need to provide transportation). They may need to investigate funding and payment options. And they definitely need to check-in with parents on a regular basis.

   While these activities may require more time than for the “typical” student case, this time may facilitate a student’s long-term success, and save other students (and staff) from catastrophic events that involve trauma, physical injuries, and death.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   While framed in tragedy, the Jennifer Crumbley court decision this week should be (a) a wake-up call for parents who know that they and their child are struggling with academic, social, emotional, behavioral, and/or mental health problems; and (b) permission for schools to strategically recommend community-based services when they are warranted, and to hold parents more accountable for following these recommendations in a timely and responsible way.

   While school personnel, as in the section immediately above, need to forge strong relationships with the parents in these situations, they also need to understand where these parents are coming from so that their communications and recommendations can be heard, accepted, and followed.

   There is no “one way” to do this. . . but the “wrong way” typically results in parental defensiveness, withdrawal, anger, and their rejection of the recommendations being made.

   For now, school personnel need to discuss the implications of the Ethan, Jennifer, and James Crumbley cases. . . and what occurred at Oxford High School in Oxford Township, Michigan in 2021... for everyone involved. They need to discuss the implications with their parent leaders. . . and the factors that most-influence parents to get the community-based services that their children need.

   The Crumbleys should represent a cautionary tale.

   Schools need to learn from this tale, acting assertively and with determination. . . and not with fear or caution.

   While schools cannot provide all the services needed by our children. . . they can serve our most involved and at-risk students by convincing their parents to take the actions needed to address their significant needs.

_ _ _ _ _

   My Friends: A lot of my school and district consultation work is funded by (often, five-year) federal grants from the U.S. Department of Education that I write for and with the districts who are interested in implementing my work.

   A new $4 million grant program is coming up in a few months that needs a single moderate to large school district with at least 25 elementary schools.

   As we can submit multiple grants from different districts, if you are interested in discussing this grant and a partnership with me, call (813-495-3318) or drop me an e-mail as soon as possible (howieknoff1@projectachieve.info).

   Another five-year $4 million grant program will likely be announced a year from now. This program will be open to districts of all sizes. If you are interested, once again, it is not too early to talk.

   BOTH grant programs focus on (a) school safety, climate, and discipline; (b) classroom relationships, behavior management, and engagement; and (c) teaching students interpersonal, conflict prevention and resolution, social problem-solving, and emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping skills and interactions.

   Beyond these grants, if you are interested in my work for your educational setting, I am happy to provide a free consultation with you and your team to discuss needs, current status, goals, and possible approaches.

   Again, call me or drop me an e-mail. Let’s get to know one another.

Best,

Howie

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

Judy Heumann, Special Education’s History of Litigation, and the Continuing Fight

 Complacency and Defensiveness Still Stand in the Way of Students with Disabilities’ Rights

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

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   Last Sunday, I woke up early to prepare and leave for another two-week consultation trip to New Jersey and Michigan. Still thinking about a topic for my next Blog, I dialed into LinkedIn to peruse the feed. There, I saw an obituary and testimonials for the life and accomplishments of Judy Heumann—who passed away the day before (March 4, 2023).

   Part of the press release—“The World Mourns the Passing of Judy Heumann, Disability Rights Activist”—announcing this sad loss stated:

Judith “Judy” Heumann—widely regarded as “the mother” of the disability rights movement—passed away in Washington, D.C. on the afternoon of March 4, 2023. Judy was at the forefront of major disability rights demonstrations, helped spearhead the passage of disability rights legislation, founded national and international disability advocacy organizations, held senior federal government positions, co-authored her memoir, Being Heumann, and its Young Adult version, Rolling Warrior, and was featured in the Oscar-nominated documentary film, Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution.

 

Born in 1947 in Philadelphia and raised in Brooklyn, New York to parents Ilse and Werner Heumann, Judy contracted polio at age two. Her doctor advised her parents to institutionalize her when it was clear that she would never be able to walk. “Institutionalization was the status quo in 1949,” she wrote. “Kids with disabilities were considered a hardship, economically and socially.” When Judy attempted to enter kindergarten, the principal blocked her family from entering the school, labeling her a “fire hazard.” However, her parents, particularly her mother, fought back and demanded that Judy have access to a classroom. Judy eventually was able to attend a special school, high school, Long Island University (from which she earned a B.A. in 1969), and the University of California, Berkeley, where she earned a Master’s in Public Health six years later.

 

In the 1970s, . . . the New York Board of Education refused to give Judy a teaching license because they feared she could not help evacuate students or herself in case of fire. She sued and went on to become the first teacher in the state to use a wheelchair. Continuing her fight for civil rights, Judy helped lead a protest that shut down traffic in Manhattan against Richard Nixon’s veto of the 1972 Rehabilitation Act, and she launched a 26-day sit-in at a federal building in San Francisco to get Section 504 of the revived Rehabilitation Act enforced.

 

Judy was instrumental in developing and implementing national disability rights legislation, including Section 504, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

 

In 1993, Judy moved to Washington, D.C. to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) in the Clinton Administration, a role she filled until 2001. From 2002-2006, she served as the first Advisor on Disability and Development at the World Bank. From 2010-2017, during the Obama Administration, she worked as the first Special Advisor for International Disability Rights at the U.S. State Department. She also was appointed as Washington, D.C.’s first Director for the Department on Disability Services.

 

“Some people say that what I did changed the world,” she wrote, “But really, I simply refused to accept what I was told about who I could be. And I was willing to make a fuss about it.”

   I met Judy a few times briefly as part of my leadership work with the National Association of School Psychologists, and listened to many of her speeches when she was the Assistant Secretary of OSERS.

   Judy was a true advocate. She used the experiences in her life to advocate for others. The supports and opportunities that she expected—representatively—for herself, she expected for all children and adults with disabilities.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Living (Some of) the History of Special Education-I

   I started my graduate school training at Syracuse University in the Fall of 1976—one year before the implementation of our nation’s first federal special education law, Public Law 94-142 (The Education for All Handicapped Children Act)—now known as IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). While I was training to be a School Psychologist, our Program rightfully wanted us to be prepared in special education.

   Syracuse University’s (SU) existing special education program was established in the late 1940s led by its first director, William Cruikshank. Significantly, this was the first university program in the country to offer a full range of degrees for teachers in special education—from a BA to a PhD.

   Cruickshank was well known before coming to SU. He was a pioneer in the field of interdisciplinary special education, believing that teachers should not neglect or isolate students because of physical or mental disabilities.

   His research frequently looked at the relationships between disabilities and social adjustment, often in school settings, and he wrote about the effect disabilities had on individuals and the community. Cruickshank also significantly impacted the emerging area of learning disabilities, and he left SU in 1967—although he returned to give guest lectures, a few of which I attended when I was there.

   When I began my studies at SU, the College of Education was dominated by professors who continued the Special Education Division’s mission of supporting the disability rights community and students with disabilities.

   Indeed, the Dean of the College in 1976 was Burt Blatt, a special education professor who helped establish the Center on Human Policy at SU, an institute dedicated to insuring the rights of individuals with disabilities. The Center’s staff (which included graduate students with funded assistantships) often threatened or took school districts and other agencies to court as they legally (before P.L. 94-142 was implemented in 1977) simply excluded students with disabilities from public education or public services, respectfully.

   Burt (as everyone called him), wrote Christmas in Purgatory, a portrait of life in a mental institution, and he consulted continuously with federal and state agencies on different ways to support individuals with disabilities. Burt was famous for “finding” cases that the Center could advocate for by wandering the streets of downtown Syracuse at lunch time, talking with parents whose children with disabilities were playing in the neighborhoods because they were excluded by the school district as uneducable.

   Burt attracted a slew of Syracuse University professors who were dedicated to “radical” (for its time) special education advocacy, research, and instruction. Indeed, the College of Education’s staff included:

·       Doug Biklen, who wrote Let Our Children Go: An Organizing Manual for Advocates and Parents—published by the Center on Human Policy; 

·       Wolf Wolfensberger, who founded the Training Institute on Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry, was known for popularizing the principle of normalization in North America and developing the concept of social role valorization, and who was one of the most influential scholars in developmental disabilities in the 20th century; and

·       Gunnar Dybwad, an internationally known lawyer and advocate, who reframed community- and family-based services for those with disabilities and cognitive impairments as a civil right, not a medical condition. Dybwad emphasized the importance of a broad range of programs and facilities to meet these individuals’ social and educational needs, and argued for the elimination of involuntary placements of people with intellectual disabilities into state facilities.

Dybwad was active in this latter area as he represented the Association of Retarded Citizens (The Arc) in the 1950s as it worked to "liberate people" from custodial institutions. He also played a major role in encouraging the 1972 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) to file disability rights litigation in federal court—successfully securing the right for these children with disabilities to receive a free public education.

   While at SU, I was privileged to take courses with both Biklen (on Advocacy) and Dybwad (on Special Education Law).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Remembering (Some of) the History of Special Education-II

   As alluded to above, before the controversial P.L. 94-142 was passed in 1975 (and before the passage of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), students with disabilities (and all individuals with disabilities, respectfully) had no nationally-secured right to a free and appropriate education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) with due process as needed.

   These rights were largely secured (a) through litigation in the court system, and (b) by brave advocates—like Judy Heumann, Burt Blatt, Gunnar Dybwad, and others—who stood up against all odds.

   Indeed, prompted by the advocates, many of the foundational rights for P.L. 94-142 were based on different state, Federal, or Supreme Court decisions—with these courts saying, in essence, to Congress. . . “get this done.”

·       The initial anchor for the subsequent court decisions was Brown v. Board of Education (1954) where African-American school children from four states argued that segregated public schools were inherently unequal and deprived them of equal protection of the laws. Indeed, the Supreme Court found that these children had the right to equal educational opportunities, stating that segregated schools “have no place in the field of public education.”

_ _ _ _ _

·       Testing and reinforcing the Brown decision, Hobson v. Hansen (1967) was a federal court case filed by civil rights activist Julius W. Hobson against Superintendent Carl F. Hansen and the District of Columbia's (DC) Board of Education. Hobson asserted that the DC Public Schools discriminated against Black and poor students relative to their right to the same (i.e., equal) educational opportunities received by White and affluent students. He asked the federal court to address questions related to the segregation of the DC’s schools, its use of academic testing and ability grouping, and its disproportionate assignment of minority students to lower-ability tracks where they received lower quality instruction.

Ultimately, Federal Judge Wright ruled that the DC Public School’s tracking system needed to be eliminated as it (a) was rigid, (b) based on culturally-biased tests, (c) resulted in academic tracks built on race and socio-economic status rather than ability and, therefore, (d) was unconstitutional and violated the equal educational opportunity provisions in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Wright further noted that the students in the lowest tracks received substantially different and inferior educational opportunities, and he ordered the integration of teachers and the abolition of optional attendance zones. Wright’s decision finally stated that ability grouping, in and of itself, was not unconstitutional, and that leaders in the DC Public Schools could not be cited for discriminatory intent.

_ _ _ _ _

   After Brown and Hobson v. Hansen, the most-notable special education court decisions in the early 1970s were:

·       Diana v. (California) Board of Education (1970)

This case was filed on behalf of a group of Spanish-speaking students who were inappropriately assigned to classes for the cognitively impaired based on assessments by monolingual school psychologists who tested these students in English and used these data to place students in special education classes. The case, filed in 1969, was settled out of court in 1970 where it was stipulated that linguistically different students must be tested in their primary language as well as English.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972)

Encouraged (as above) by Gunnar Dybwad and tried by lawyer Thomas Gilhool, this case was filed on behalf of fourteen families that had children with intellectual disabilities. These students could not attend public schools based on state laws that allowed schools to deny them access if they had not reached an average intellectual mental age of five by the time they began first grade.

The case was eventually settled following the testimony of expert witnesses (including Burt Blatt from Syracuse University) and the District Court’s approval of the consent decree. This decree held that the State had to guarantee a free public education to all children with intellectual disabilities ages 6 to 21—regardless of the degree of their impairment or associated disabilities, and that all educational placement decisions needed to include a process of parental participation and a means to resolve disputes.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Mills v. (DC) Board of Education, District of Columbia (1972)

The Mills case extended the PARC decision as it established the constitutional right of children with any disability to a public education regardless of their functional level.

This class action suit involved Peter Mills, a twelve-year old boy and ward of the state, and six other children (from eight to sixteen years old) with different disabilities including epilepsy, behavioral disorders, and cognitive impairments. These students were suspended, expelled, or excluded from DC’s public schools primarily due to the high cost of educating these children.

The Judge ruled in favor of the students, finding that they were expelled from the District without due process, and that they were entitled to an education regardless of the costs of their needed accommodations.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Lau v. Nichols (1974)

This case, tried in the U.S. Supreme Court, confirmed that the San Francisco Unified School District was violating of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was required to provide supplemental language instruction for students with Limited English Proficiency (or English as a Second Language).

Lau and approximately 3,000 students of Chinese descent attending the District were not proficient in English, only 1,000 of them were receiving a supplemental English language course taught exclusively in English, and many were placed either into special education classes or they were forced to stay in the same grade level for years.

In its unanimous ruling on this class action lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that "there is not equality in treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from a meaningful education."

_ _ _ _ _

   After the PARC and Mills decisions, the U.S. Congress launched an investigation into the status of children with disabilities, finding that millions of children were not receiving an appropriate education.

   Recognizing that many of these children had the potential to be independent, productive, contributing citizens with the “appropriate” educational opportunities and supports, Congress began—in 1972—to introduce new legislative bills. These, ultimately, were integrated into P.L. 94-142 which was passed and formally signed into law by President Gerald Ford on November 29, 1975.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Why Special Education History is Important to Those Working with Today’s Students with Disabilities

   Relative to writing this commemorative (for Judy Heumann) Blog, there is a method to my madness.

   I am concerned that many contemporary administrators, general education teachers, related services professionals (school psychologists, counselors, social workers) and, indeed, special education teachers do not know and may not appreciate the history of special education advocacy and litigation detailed above.

   And in not knowing this history, they do not understand, and sometimes take it personally, when—for example—parents, advocates, and students with disabilities themselves fight against the still-existing education and special education injustices that are rampant across our country.

   But beyond not understanding, some of these educators defensively resist, disparage, and even disenfranchise these parents, advocates, and students. . . clinging to the unfounded beliefs and inappropriate practices grounding these injustices. . . and closing their minds to new and/or convincing research-to-practice that invalidates their approaches.

   Indeed, some of the continuing injustices in special education include the following:

·       The disproportionate office discipline referrals of students with disabilities (SWD), as well as the disproportionate number of suspensions and expulsions. . . in the absence of effective multi-tiered interventions implemented by well-trained special education and related professionals. 

·       The excessive use of seclusions, restraints, and (where still allowed) corporal punishments of SWDs. . . once again, in the absence of effective multi-tiered services and supports. 

·       The singular promotion, by the federal and many state special education departments, of two frameworks, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and Response-to-Intervention/Multi-tiered Systems of Support (RtI/MTSS), that have never been objectively validated relative to their ability to demonstrate sustained academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for preschool through high school students with different intensities of different disabilities in different geographic and demographic settings.

·       The failure to review, analyze, and objectively evaluate the current and historical facts and status of students with complex special education needs using a data-based problem-solving method that links intervention to sound root cause analysis processes.

·       The absence (and, sometimes, denial) of a continuum of services, supports, and interventions—including their delivery in well-staffed and resourced self-contained, day treatment, and residential centers—for students with social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health challenges. . . in the context of the archaic, almost 20-year-old “emotionally disturbed” definition in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) that still is the “law of the land.”

·       The lack of training and use of assistive supports and specific, strategically-chosen accommodations for students across the 13 disability areas outlined by IDEA.

·       The development, implementation, and coordination of effective transition services and supports (required by IDEA starting at age 14), that should include career and technical education coursework and training for SWDs—and vocational training partnerships with states’ Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (or the equivalent), as appropriate.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Personal Summary

   Two Blogs ago, I talked about how the state departments of education, state departments of behavioral health services, and regional educational cooperative or resource centers in some states are ignoring their responsibilities to students with significant social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health disorders by not having enough well-resourced self-contained, day treatment, and residential treatment programs.

February 11, 2023. “Was a First Grade Virginia Teacher Shot Because Her Student was Denied Special Education Services? What School Administrators Face that State Departments of Education Ignore”

[CLICK HERE to Link to this Blog]

   I connected these gaps to some of the school shootings that have involved these current or former students, and implored us to do better. . . and I further discussed these issues on a March 1, 2023 Education Talk Radio interview with Larry Jacobs (see below).

_ _ _ _ _

   In my last Blog, I discussed the negative effects when educators—who see inappropriate practices and injustices in their schools—become “selectively mute” while looking away.

February 25, 2023. “Solutions for Selectively Mute Students and Educators: The Long-Term Adverse Educational Effects When Inappropriate Behavior is Ignored”

[CLICK HERE to Link to this Blog]

_ _ _ _ _

   In response to the first Blog, I had a colleague from one of those state regional cooperatives (that are mandated and funded to help the districts provide the continuum of services for all students with disabilities) contact me asking for a Zoom conference call.

   In my response—which agreed to the request, I told the individual that I wanted to know “the questions or issues that will be discussed during the call ahead of time.”

   I also stated:

Related to this, if you have specific information that differs—factually—from anything in my Blog, I would like to have/see that information and documentation in advance (so that I can respond to it in an informed way during the call).

 

Parenthetically, while I am happy to listen to your concerns, if the purpose of the call is largely to express displeasure with the Blog, know that the Blog was written by me. . . as a "generic national expert and public servant." If we are going to meet, I want to be respectful of everyone's time, give you and your colleagues an opportunity to share your concerns, but not get into unneeded discussions that are not directed toward more effective services to students and their families, and staff, schools, and districts.

   The individual followed-up with a second e-mail where s/he attempted to cite law and statute so as to defend his/her agency’s service delivery gaps— especially for students with significant social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs.

   While I addressed (and attempted to refute) all of the provided information point-by-point, here was my representative response:

As advocates for children and adolescents, how does your (cooperative) staff feel when the only thing a district can do to protect its students (including the student with disabilities) is to put a student into Homebound because the appropriate educational program that they need is unavailable? 

 

And how do you all feel when a District only provides the lowest, legally-required educational services of two hours per week to that student. . . relative to that student's learning, progress, and preparation for their short-term (e.g., successful reintegration into the district) and long-term (e.g., employability) future?

 

Another perspective . . . might be important to think about relative to this issue.  If your (cooperative/regional resource center) were to be sued in a class action suit by parents with behaviorally challenging students who are not receiving the services and supports legally due to them, how would (it) fare in court?

_ _ _ _ _

   As noted above, when educators do not understand that advocacy and litigation were the foundations of our current special education laws and statutes, they sometimes become defensive about their own practices and responsibilities, or inflexible regarding their objectivity and openness to change.

   Some then attempt to “hide behind the law” by demonstrating assiduously that they are adhering to it. And some do not even know that they are doing this.

   Judy Heumann did not hide behind the law.

   She helped to make the law, while acknowledging its flaws and limitations.

   Judy did not let her physical limitations define her. . . nor did she let others restrict her physically.

   Judy was a national treasure. . . She was a giant.

   My three favorite “Judy” quotes are:

The truth is, the status quo loves to say no. It is the easiest thing in the world to say no, especially in the world of business and finance. But for the first time we were discussing civil rights, and no other civil rights issue has ever been questioned because of the cost.

_ _ _ _ _

 

Our anger was a fury sparked by profound injustices. Wrongs that deserved ire. And with that rage we ripped a hole in the status quo.

_ _ _ _ _

Change never happens at the pace we think it should. It happens over years of people joining together, strategizing, sharing, and pulling all the levers they possibly can. Gradually, excruciatingly slowly, things start to happen, and then suddenly, seemingly out of the blue, something will tip.

   May her memory be a blessing.

Best,

Howie

 

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