Showing posts with label Social Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media. Show all posts

Saturday, February 8, 2025

Minimizing Classroom Distractions to Maximize Student Learning

Building Walls to Buffer Politics, Phones, Prejudice, and Preferential Treatment

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[The Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive podcast, hosted by popular AI Educators Angela Jones and Davey Johnson, provides an engaging and enlightening synopsis and analysis of this Blog on Spotify... CLICK HERE]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   One of my colleagues began a recent Facebook post with: “These past two weeks have seemed like six months.”

   While his post focused on “all things Washington, D.C.”, most of us—in this first month of 2025—have watched many other significant national and international events:

·       The New Year’s Eve truck and terror attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans

·       The devastating fires in Los Angeles, and other now “less-than-unusual” weather events across the country

·       The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, with its protracted return of more October 7 hostages and Palestinian detainees, and residents’ return to many now-devasted communities across Gaza

·       Another school shooting in Nashville, TN at Antioch High School—with renewed calls for lawmakers to truly (?!) address school safety

·       Continued focus on TikTok, teens, and national security, paralleled by a new Chinese AI app, DeepSeek, that upset the tech industry (and Wall Street)

·       The tragic incident when an American Airlines flight collided with a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter near Washington, D.C., resulting in the loss of 67 lives

·       . . . and so on. . .

_ _ _ _ _

   And, of course, there are the issues closer to our “educational lives.”

   For example:

·       Calls to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education

·       The brief freeze of trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans—causing panic and confusion across education and other public services (before a federal judge intervened)

·       The President’s Executive Orders—  

   (a) recognizing only two genders,

   (b) restricting access to gender-affirming care for individuals under 19 years old (with threatened litigation, and then a withdrawal by the Administration), 

   (c) banning schools that receive federal funding from allowing transgender and nonbinary students to use names and pronouns that best match, and bathrooms and locker rooms that best fit, their gender identity, and 

   (d) disallowing transgender girls from competing on women’s teams and threatening to withhold federal subsidies and launch investigations into non-complying K-12 schools

·       A related Executive Order threatening schools with the diversion of their federal funds if they—

   (a) teach "discriminatory equity ideology"—an ideology that treats "individuals as members of preferred or disfavored groups, rather than as individuals," and that minimizes "agency, merit, and capability in favor of immoral generalizations"; or 

   (b) assert that some people are oppressed because of their race, or that the U.S. is "fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.”

   And in the midst of these events and edicts, school marches on. . . with teachers trying to teach, and students trying to learn.

   But these (sometimes) random, stream-of-consciousness edicts are creating concern or confusion in our schools and classrooms. . . and they are distracting many educators and students away from “the business of school” and into a realm of dissention or distress.

   And while it’s hard not to initially take these edicts seriously. . . as they are typically delivered in a serious manner and, if implemented, would have significant effects. . .

. . . many of them are predictably unpredictable, most of them will be legally or legislatively contested, and very few of them will survive or have any practical or functional impact.

   And yet, they are exhausting.

   Moreover, they are largely unwelcomed—and they encroach on the sanctity of the school day.

   Indeed, they are taking up time and space. . . and interfering with “teachers trying to teach, and students trying to learn.”

_ _ _ _ _

   Critically, some of the educational issues above clearly do matter—especially those that directly relate to school climate, the acceptance of all students (and staff) with individual differences, and the safety and comfort of these students (and staff).

   As to the others . . today’s Blog hopes to:

·       Recalibrate the discussion;

·       Re-establish the “safety net” that protects educators and students from unnecessary and unwanted distractions that waste time, energy, and emotional capital; and

·       Reinforce what many educators are already doing—namely, offering students a balanced education that exposes them to established facts, proven methods, scientific certainties, and opportunities to discuss contested issues in safe, productive, and collegial ways.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Recalibrating the Discussion: What Makes a Difference for Students’ Long-Term Success?

   In 1992, well-known political pundit, James Carville, coined the phrase,

“It’s the economy, stupid”. . .

recognizing that many Presidents are elected based on voters’ past, current, and future expected incomes.

   Given this, and politics aside, one of the “ultimate” K-12 educational goals is to prepare graduates (and non-graduates) with the skills to become. . . eventually. . . financially self-sufficient.

   In November 2023, Good Reason Houston collaborated with the University of Houston’s Education Research Center to determine what educational experiences predicted PreK to Grade 12 students’ postsecondary college enrollment, credential attainment, employment, and earnings.

[CLICK HERE for this Study

   Investigating Grade 8 through 12 students from Houston (TX) public schools from 2012 through 2017, the results, released a few weeks ago in January 2025, revealed that:

Accessing challenging schoolwork early and taking multiple advanced classes better positions students for high-paying, fast-growing jobs, and to earn a living wage after high school.

   The Key Findings from this Research were:

·        Only 20% of Houston graduates earned a living wage: For example, only 1 in 5 high school graduates from the class of 2017 earned a living wage six years after high school graduation.

·        Attaining a credential played an important role in earning a living wage: High school graduates who earned a bachelor’s degree were 3.8 times more likely to earn a living wage, and those who earned a professional certificate were 3 times more likely to earn a living wage, compared to those without a credential.

·        The following key academic experiences in Grades 8 to 12 predicted the students who were likely to earn a post-secondary living wage

o   Students who took Algebra 1 in 8th grade

o   Students who met 8th-grade reading standards on the Texas state standards/benchmark exam

o   Students who completed five or more advanced courses in high school (they were 22 percentage points more likely to earn a post-graduation credential)

o   Students who excelled in both 8th-grade reading and advanced coursework were the most likely to achieve economic stability 

o   High school graduates with postsecondary credentials were 17 percentage points more likely to earn a living wage than their peers without credentials

   Assuming similar results across the country, this research demonstrates—once again—the importance of PreK through Grade 12 students’ academic depth, breadth, and proficiency, and the significant gaps that impact high school graduates’ post-secondary financial status and economic stability.

   Moreover, to be proficient in middle school and high school, students clearly need to be prepared for and proficient at the elementary school level.

   But we are not doing a good job across the board.

   Indeed, the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released on January 29, 2025, reveal a sobering picture of the current state of education in our country

   Specifically:

·        Reading Scores Declined: Average reading scores for both fourth and eighth graders declined since the last assessment. This marks a continuation of a downward trend that began around a decade ago.

·        Math Scores Show Mixed Results: While fourth-grade math scores saw a slight increase, eighth-grade math scores remained stagnant. The gap between the highest- and lowest-performing students in eighth-grade math is the widest it's ever been.

·        Impact of the Pandemic: The pandemic has had a lasting impact on student performance, with many students still performing below their pre-pandemic levels.

·        Persistent Achievement Gaps: The divide between high-achieving and low-performing students has widened, with struggling students stagnating or falling further behind.

_ _ _ _ _

   If our country is going to prepare all students for post-secondary living (or beyond) wages and financial stability, we need to take and modify James Carville’s lead:

“It’s about quality instruction, student engagement and learning, and high school graduates’ academic proficiency and post-secondary readiness. . . stupid.”

   And to do this, we need to build a wall to discourage and keep the distractions and silliness out of our schools and classrooms.

   We need to allow “teachers to teach, and students to learn.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Re-Establishing the Safety Net: What Students Want and Need

   While many distractions need to be eliminated to strengthen our country’s “student safety net,” let’s address a political external distraction (reinforcing the introduction above), and a self-induced school and classroom internal distraction.

Eliminating an External Distraction

   As noted above, an Executive Order was signed this past week threatening schools with the diversion of their federal funds if they (a) teach "discriminatory equity ideology,” (b) assert that some people are oppressed because of their race, or (c) declare that the U.S. is "fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.”

   This is the same unvalidated fear from the first Trump Administration which resulted—in early 2021— in 44 states introducing bills (or taking other steps) to restrict either the teaching of critical race theory or how teachers discuss racism and sexism in the classroom.

   Critically, the fear was largely unfounded then, and is largely unfounded now. Below are three studies providing support.

·     Study 1. In 2022, the American Historical Association (AHA) launched the most comprehensive study of the national U.S. history teaching landscape undertaken in the 21st century. The study combined a 50-state appraisal of history standards and legislation, a commissioned survey of over 3,000 middle and high school U.S. history educators, interviews with over 200 teachers and administrators, and analyses of thousands of pages of instructional materials “from small towns to sprawling suburbs to big cities.”

 

The published AHA report indicated that:

 

(a) secondary U.S. history teachers are professionals concerned with helping students learn central elements of our nation’s history by reading and understanding founding documents, and grappling with the complex history and legacies of racism and slavery. We did not find indoctrination, politicization, or deliberate classroom malpractice.

 

(b) Despite legislative interference, the localized influence of state-mandated assessment, and efforts to standardize instruction, history teachers retain substantial discretion over what they use in their daily work.

 

(c) Free online resources outweigh traditional textbooks, which are unlikely to stand at the center of history instruction. U.S. history teachers rely on a short list of trusted sites led by federal institutions including the Library of Congress, the National Archives, and Smithsonian museums.

_ _ _ _ _

 

·        Study 2. A 2022 University of Southern California Rossier School of Education survey of 3,751 Americans—representing diverse political, racial, and economic backgrounds—asked their views on teaching controversial topics in schools. Forty percent of the respondents were Democrats, 36% were Republicans, and 24% were neither.

The survey revealed that:

Ø  Most respondents overwhelmingly supported teaching controversial social and political issues at the high school level, while they were more hesitant about teaching these topics at the elementary school level.

At the high school level, (a) 95% of the respondents supported students learning about slavery, and the contributions of women and people of color, respectfully; (b) 85% supported learning about the 2nd Amendment and racial inequality, respectively; (c) 82% about gun control; (d) 80% about pro-choice and pro-life decisions; (e) 68% about gay rights and sexual orientation; and (f) 62% about gender identity and trans rights.

Ø  There was bipartisan agreement on teaching some topics in elementary school, like the Founding Fathers, contributions of women and people of color, slavery, and environmental issues.

Ø  Less than 50% of the respondents from both political parties supported teaching about LGBTQ topics at the elementary school level, while over 80% of Democrats supported LGBTQ education at the high school level in contrast to less than 40% of Republicans.

Ø  About half of respondents either had not heard of Critical Race Theory (CRT) or did not know what it meant. The most common response about teaching CRT was neutral.

Ø  81% of the Republican respondents supported allowing parents to opt children out of controversial lessons in contrast to 46% of the Democrat respondents.

_ _ _ _ _ 

·        Study 3. A study published in the most-recent Winter 2025 issue of Education Next analyzes the results of a nationally representative May 2024 survey of 850 U.S. high school students. The survey investigated whether public schools are systematically indoctrinating students in “woke” CRT ideologies.

The key findings from this national survey revealed that:

Ø  The teaching of CRT-related concepts exists but is not pervasive:

The majority of the students learned about racial progress in America

About 40% of the teachers used common terms like "white privilege" and "systemic oppression"

About 1/3 of the student respondents reported frequent teaching that "America is fundamentally racist"

20% said that teachers assert "white people should feel guilty about privilege"

Ø  76% of students felt comfortable sharing differing opinions

Ø  Students reported equal criticism of both conservative and liberal viewpoints 

Ø  The students reported that they formed their political beliefs primarily from family, friends, and social media. Only 17% of survey respondents said that their teachers had a “very influential” impact on their beliefs

The article concluded that (a) both sides of the debate have legitimate concerns; (b) teaching critical views of U.S. history is important for learning from past mistakes; and (c) there is a need to balance critical examination with instilling patriotism.

_ _ _ _ _

   Assuming that the representative samples in these three studies truly reflect the perspectives of their chosen groups, these studies reinforce a conclusion that:

·        Most Americans support the teaching of controversial social and political issues at the high school level;

·        Most secondary U.S. history teachers are teaching these topics with professionalism and without undue indoctrination or politization; and

·        Most students are forming their political beliefs primarily from family, friends, and social media.

   Given this, it seems that the recent Executive Order regarding schools teaching a "discriminatory equity ideology” is largely a needless distraction to teachers and students.

   At the same time, administrators may need to informally complete a “check and balance” here without burdening, alarming, or questioning the integrity of their staff.

_ _ _ _ _ _

Removing A Self-Induced Internal Distraction

   A February 6, 2025 Education Week article (“More States Are Moving to Ban Cellphones at School. Should They?”) discussed one of the major distractions in schools over the past number of years.

   Critically, this has been a self-induced distraction as—without casting any blame or responsibility—most districts allowed cell phones in their classrooms as they were largely unprepared for this issue, and there was no research to guide their decision-making.

   It seemed like cell phones were treated as an inalienable right!

   But now, education “gets it.”

   Cellphones are a major distraction in the classroom with students showing almost a psychological dependence on them—if not an addiction. They negatively impact students’ engagement and learning. And they are accessories to social media teasing, bullying, and other negative peer interactions.

   According to the Education Week article:

Nearly all 13- to 17-year-olds (95%) have access to a smartphone, according to the Pew Research Center. On average, teens receive 237 notifications on their cellphones per day, and kids spend a median of 43 minutes on their phones during school hours, or the equivalent of about one class period, according to a 2023 study by Common Sense Media that tracked the cellphone usage of 200 11- to 17-year-olds. Those distractions hurt students’ ability to learn, research has found.

 

Sixty-five percent of parents of K-12 students polled by the Pew Research Center said they support banning middle and high school students from accessing their cellphones during class time, and 35% favor banning phones for the entire school day.

 

An August 2024 survey from the National Education Association found that 90% of teachers support policies prohibiting student use of cellphones or other personal devices at school during instructional time.

 

Currently, at least 19 states have laws or policies that ban or restrict students’ use of cellphones in schools statewide or recommend local districts enact their own bans or restrictive policies. Some states, such as Florida and Louisiana, bar students from using cellphones throughout the entire school day, with some exceptions. Other states require or recommend that districts create their own cellphone policies to limit—if not completely restrict—students access to cellphones.

 

Districts have met these directives in a variety of ways. For example, some districts require students to lock up their phones in specially designed pouches at the start of the school day. Others allow students to use their cellphones between classes and during lunch periods, but they must be stowed away during class time. Still others have left cellphone policies up to teachers to create for their individual classrooms.

_ _ _ _ _

   The early results from schools establishing policies to eliminate cell phone distractions are notable.

   A separate Education Week article (“What Schools Look Like Without the Cellphone Distraction;” February 5, 2025), reported that:

·        A North Adams (MA) school district cellphone ban resulted in a 75% drop in student discipline referrals in the last quarter of the 2024 school year (most notably in students skipping class or detention, being out of class without permission, verbal altercations that escalate into fights), and anecdotal increases in student classroom engagement and teachers getting through instructional material more quickly.

_ _ _ _ _

·        A teacher survey—at the end of the 2023-24 school year—when the Bentonville (AR) school district piloted a cellphone ban in one of its High Schools, showed that 86% of the teachers perceived an improvement in student engagement from the 2022-23 to the 2023-24 school year, and 75% perceived increased socialization within their classrooms.

There also was a 57% reduction in verbal- and physical-aggression student discipline offenses, and a 51% decrease in drug-related offenses—attributed to students who used cellphones to coordinate drug exchanges.

_ _ _ _ _

·        The Indian River County’s (FL) 2023-24 districtwide cellphone ban was especially beneficial at the middle school level where there was a 14% decrease in fights from one year to the next.

_ _ _ _ _

·        And after two years of restricting cellphone use in the Middleburgh (NY) School District’s Junior/Senior High School, there were fewer  cyberbullying and disciplinary issues in school, and—as students started to pay more attention in class—teachers needed to reconfigure their lessons to make them more interactive as students wanted them to be more engaging.

   The Education Week article noted that parents became more supportive of their schools’ cellphone restrictions when data was shared with them on student engagement increases and office discipline decreases.

   And the article suggested that the most effective restriction approaches included (a) district-wide implementation with (b) clear tiered consequences, (c) consistent teacher-wide implementation, (d) effective continual communication of the new approaches to students across their schools and in their classrooms, and (e) sticking to “the Plan” with persistence and a non-punitive, matter-of-fact attitude.

_ _ _ _ _

   Significantly, it’s never easy to change well-established patterns of behavior.

   As noted above, students have become dependent on their cellphones, and some parents have reinforced this dependence by using texts and e-mails to communicate with their children and/or adolescents during the school day.

   Behavioral science clearly demonstrates that, when we try to eliminate (“extinguish”) a strongly-reinforced behavior in the face of meaningful (here, to the student) consequences, the inappropriate behavior typically first increases in frequency.

   However, when tiered consequences are consistently applied to the inappropriate behavior, and positive social and self-reinforcement occurs with the appropriate behavior, the inappropriate behavior quickly and significantly decreases and, eventually, is eliminated.

   An essential “training” step is to roleplay the “I-need-to-look-at-my-cellphone impulse” scenario with students before implementing a new policy.

   This involves guiding them through roleplays where they simulate (a) wanting to take out their cellphone; (b) taking deep breaths to control their emotions; (c) simultaneously saying to themselves, “I need to focus on the teacher and my work;” and (d) shifting their bodies slightly in their seats, repositioning their hands toward their work, and listening consciously to their teacher or looking consciously at their work.

   When these roleplays and behaviors are practiced to a level of almost-automaticity, more students will be more quickly successful when the new cellphone ban policy is later implemented.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Reinforcing the Reality: Most Educators Demonstrate Consistent Professionalism

   The results of the Gallup Poll’s annual “Mood of the Nation” survey, conducted between January 2 to 15, 2025, were reported on February 5th.

   Involving a random sample of 1,005 adults, 18 years old or older and who live in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the respondents’ average satisfaction with 31 different aspects of the country held at 38%, matching the same average as the last four years.

   The Gallup Press Release noted that:

Americans’ overall satisfaction with the direction of the country is also historically on the low side, although today’s 20% satisfaction score, similar to the readings since 2023, is improved from 11% in January 2021. That reading captured public discontent during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as with the negative political climate after the 2020 election and Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

 

American’s highest satisfaction is with nation’s military and overall quality of life. Americans are least satisfied with anti-poverty efforts, and the moral climate of the country.

_ _ _ _ _

   Relative to education, Poll results indicate that Americans’ opinions about the quality of public education in the United States continue to decline. Indeed, the percentage of adults who are dissatisfied with public education has increased steadily from 62% to 73% between 2019 and 2025 annual polls. The percentage of adults who now feel satisfied with public education is the lowest since 2001.

   At the same time, when other surveys ask parents to rate their own local public schools, their satisfaction has historically been much higher than the more generic Gallup Poll. This discrepancy often reflects parents direct experience with their community schools versus their “national” perspectives. . . which are often influenced by what they see in the media.

   Regardless. . . based on all of the discussions in this Blog, students’ literacy and mathematics performance desperately need to improve, and schools need to redouble their attention and interventions for low performing and less successful students.

   This will require a laser focus—as noted earlier—on:

“Quality instruction, student engagement and learning, and academic proficiency and readiness for each next grade level.”

   In keeping with today’s theme, this will also require a reduction of external and internal distractions, and a recognition that:

“Many educators are conscientiously providing students a balanced education that exposes them to established facts, proven methods, scientific certainties, and opportunities to discuss contested issues in safe, productive, and collegial ways.”

   Controlling the use of cellphones in our schools and classrooms is an important step in this process. . . a step that needs to be paired with the other effective school and schooling processes that schools are implementing or need to implement.

   In addition, educators and educational leaders need to “build a wall” to control the introduction, discussion, and impact of the current external wave of Executive Orders and stream-of-consciousness asides that are leaking into our schools and becoming distractions in our classrooms.

   They are usurping far too much time and space. . . and they are interfering with “teachers trying to teach, and students trying to learn.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog began by listing some of the significant national and international events or crises that directly or indirectly affected us this past month. We also noted that, simultaneously, educators experienced an additional series of significant political and profession-impacting events that included Executive Orders and public pronouncements regarding the quality and business of instruction, learning, and the schooling process.

   Combining the results of numerous recent and past surveys and reports, we discussed how the current external and internal distractions are creating concern or confusion—making it difficult for teachers to teach, and students to learn. The first-cited study showed that Grade 8 to 12 students from Houston public schools (2012 to 2017) who took challenging schoolwork early and advanced classes in high school had higher-paying and faster-growing jobs later on.

   Relative to external distractions, studies were reviewed to demonstrate that the premises underlying the Executive Orders targeting schools teaching “discriminatory equity ideologies” are unfounded, and we discussed that those targeting the trans and nonbinary communities are being legally contested or have already been withdrawn.

   Relative to internal distractions, we discussed recent studies showing the positive effects of cellphone bans on student engagement and behavior. This will add value to the many educators who consistently offer students a balanced education that exposes them to established facts, proven methods, scientific certainties, and opportunities to discuss contested issues in safe, productive, and collegial ways.

   In the end, we paraphrased James Carville, stating:

“It’s about quality instruction, student engagement and learning, and high school graduates’ academic proficiency and post-secondary readiness. . . stupid.”

   We encourage all educators to “build a figurative wall” to discourage and keep distractions and silliness out of our schools and classrooms.

   Teachers need to teach, and students need to learn.

_ _ _ _ _

A New Podcast and Professional Development Resource for You

   At the beginning of January, we announced a new partnership and resource for you.

   The partnership is with popular AI Educators, Davey Johnson and Angela Jones. . . and the resource is their Podcast:

Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive 

   For each published bimonthly Blog, Davey and Angela will summarize and analyze the Blog in their free-wheeling and “no-holds-barred” Podcast. . . addressing its importance to “education today,” and discussing their recommendations on how to apply the information so that all students, staff, and schools benefit to “the next level of excellence.”

   You can find the Podcast at the following link:

Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive | Podcast on Spotify

   Davey and Angela have also created a Podcast Archive of more than 35 additional and separate podcasts involving all of our 2024 Blogs (Volume 2), and 14 of our most-popular Blogs from 2023 (Volume 1).

   The Podcasts are posted on Spotify, and you can “Follow” the Podcast Series so that you will be automatically notified whenever a new Podcast is posted.

   Many districts and schools are using the Podcasts in their Leadership Teams and/or PLCs to keep everyone abreast of new issues and research in education, and to stimulate important discussions and decisions regarding the best ways to enhance student, staff, and school outcomes.

   If you would like to follow a Podcast up with a free one-hour consultation with me, just contact me and we will get it on our schedules.

   I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Howie

 

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[To listen to a synopsis and analysis of this Blog on the “Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive” podcast hosted by popular AI Educators, Angela Jones and Davey Johnson on Spotify: CLICK HERE for Angela and Davey’s Enlightening Discussion]

Saturday, July 27, 2024

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]