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]

As Cyberbullying Increases, Positive School Climate Decreases

Student Involvement Must Be Part of the Solution. . . How to Do It

Dear Colleagues,

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message]

 

Introduction

 

  I receive about fifteen or twenty e-mails a day from different national organizations, education news feeds, and professional list-servs. While not exhaustive, they do a great job of keeping me up-to-speed on new national research and reports, and major issues and innovations in education and psychology.

 

  Many times (and you know this if you are a regular reader), I get frustrated with stories that overtly or covertly advocate programs that:

 

• Lack scientific validation and comprehensive field-testing;

 

• Are “known or implemented” simply because they are promoted by publishers, foundations, or even the U.S. Department of Education (or its incestuously-funded network of Technical Assistance Centers); and

 

• Are actually “public interest” stories that some educators read as “professional truths.”

 

  At other times, I see interesting stories, and I copy them into a single envelope on my computer where they germinate with other stories that don’t initially appear to relate to each other. . . but eventually do.

 

  When preparing my “next” Blog message, I often visit this envelope when I don’t have a “hot” issue, theme, or concern that needs immediate attention. And, more often than not, like a wine blended with different grapes that age together in unexpected ways, two or three very different stories blend together. . . resulting in a message that hopefully adds a different perspective to an important educational issue or activity.

 

  In essence, this is how today’s Blog message evolved.

 

  This Blog addresses the critical issue of cyberbullying. But it emphasizes the need to listen to and involve our students because—ultimately—they will be the ones to “solve” the problem. 

 

  It then sprinkles in some wisdom from a Forbes article, “You Can’t Just Transform Your Business, You Need to Transform Yourself as Well,” and a “Negotiations Preparation Checklist” from the Program on Negotiation at the Harvard University Law School. While not directly related to cyberbullying, these two resources add critical value to the discussion and my school-centered recommendations.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

Cyberbullying: A Definition, Bullying for Today’s Students, and the Extent of the Cyberbullying Problem

 

A Definition

 

  Cyberbullying has been defined as the willful and repeated harm that is inflicted on a student through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. Cyberbullying includes e-mails, texts, blogs, social networking posts, videos and pictures, and other electronic messages that are intended to embarrass, ostracize, humiliate, bully, threaten, or harass one or more students. 

_ _ _ _ _

 

Bullying for Today’s Students

 

  A June 3, 2019 Education Week article by Kelson Goldfine from YouthTruth discussed their recently released report, Learning from Student Voice: Bullying Today. YouthTruth is a San Francisco-based national non-profit that directly surveys student to give educators feedback on the impact and meaningfulness of their school initiatives. The Bullying Today report analyzed student responses from the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years regarding their experiences with and perceptions of school climate, safety, and bullying. 

 

  During the 2017-18 school year, for example, YouthTruth analyzed the anonymous feedback from over 160,000 students across 37 states in grades five through twelve. They discovered that most bullying happens in person, and that victims believed they were bullied (in rank order) because of their appearance, their race or skin color, and because other students thought they were gay.

 

  The primary accumulated results in the Report were:

 

• Just over half of students feel safe at school. 59% of students feel safe at school generally. More specifically, 54% feel safe in hallways, restrooms, and locker rooms. Similarly, 55% say they feel safe on school property outside the school building.

 

• Bullying and peer-on-peer harassment remain common and are increasing. Only 66% of students report that adults at their school try to stop bullying and harassment, and a recent report shows bullying is on the rise.

 

• Middle School students experience higher rates of bullying than high school students.

 

• One in 3 students report that they must be ready to fight to defend themselves at school. The data show that middle school students experience higher rates of bullying than high school students, and they are more likely than high school students to observe physical fighting and feel that they must be ready to fight to defend themselves.

 

• Majority White schools have higher rates of bullying. In majority White schools, students of color experienced a steeper increase in bullying than white students last year.

 

• African-American students are more likely than white students to feel that they must be ready to fight to defend themselves. 41% of black or African-American students indicated they feel they must be ready to protect themselves at school, compared with only 21% of white students.

_ _ _ _ _

 

Additional National Perspectives on the Extent of the Cyberbullying Problem

 

  A July 25, 2019 Education Week article summarized the latest school safety statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) in its July, 2019 publication, Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools: First Look Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety—2017-2018.

 

[CLICK HERE for Original Report]

 

  This Report is based on the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) which was developed by the NCES and has been administered seven times over the years. The most-current SSOCS data were collected between February 20, 2018 and July 18, 2018 from on-line surveys e-mailed to a nationally representative, stratified, random sample of 4,803 public school principals. In the end, 2,762 (62%) primary, middle, high, and combined schools completed the survey.

 

  The Education Week article compared the 2017-2018 SSOCS school year data with the 2015-2016 SSOCS school year data—the last previous time when the survey was given.

 

  All of this cyberbullying information is supplemented below with results from the March, 2018 NCES Report, Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2017.

 

[CLICK HERE for Original Report]

 

  This Report, the 20th such report in this series, integrates data collected between 2013 and 2016 from a variety of sources—including:

 

(N)ational surveys of students, teachers, principals, and postsecondary institutions. Sources include results from the School-Associated Violent Death Surveillance System, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the National Crime Victimization Survey and School Crime Supplement to that survey, sponsored by BJS and NCES, respectively; the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, sponsored by the CDC; the Schools and Staffing Survey, National Teacher and Principal Survey, School Survey on Crime and Safety, Fast Response Survey System, and EDFacts, all sponsored by NCES; the Supplementary Homicide Reports, sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Campus Safety and Security Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education; and the Program for International Student Assessment, sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

_ _ _ _ _

 

  Briefly, the Education Week article summarized the following cyberbullying data from the July, 2019 NCES Report:

 

• About a third of middle and high schools said they deal with cyberbullying at least once a week to daily. This represents an increase when compared to the 2015-16 school year survey data. 

 

• 33.1% of the middle schools and 30.2% of the high schools surveyed reported disciplinary problems stemming from cyberbullying at least once a week, or as often as every day. In contrast, only 4.5% of the primary schools surveyed reported similar cyberbully-generated discipline problems.

 

The middle and high school percentages above represented a slight increase from the last time these data were collected. . . in the 2015-16 school year. At that time, 25.9% of high schools, 25.6% of middle schools, and 4.2% of elementary schools reported disciplinary problems originating from cyberbullying at least once a week. 

_ _ _ _ _

 

  The March, 2018 NCES Report discussed cyberbullying data drawn largely from the 2015-2016 SSOCS. Rather than reiterate this Report’s information on past incident levels of cyberbullying (as the 2017-2018 SSOCS data cited above are more current), we will review some of its additional contextual information on cyberbullying:

• In 2015–16, about 12% of public schools reported that cyberbullying had occurred among students at least once a week at school or away from school. 7% of public schools also reported that the school environment was affected by cyberbullying, and 6% of schools reported that staff resources were used to deal with cyberbullying.

• During the 2015–16 school year, about 93% of public schools reported that they provided training on safety procedures (e.g., how to handle emergencies) for classroom teachers or aides, and 84% of schools reported providing training on classroom management. Schools also reported providing training to classroom teachers and aides on schoolwide discipline policies and practices related to cyberbullying (67%), bullying other than cyberbullying (79%), violence (69%), and alcohol and/or drug use (42%).

• During the 2015–16 school year, a greater percentage of public middle schools than of high schools and primary schools reported providing training on discipline policies and practices for cyberbullying and bullying other than cyberbullying. Similarly, a greater percentage of middle schools than of high schools and primary schools reported providing training on recognizing physical, social, and verbal bullying behaviors.

• Similarly, a higher percentage of larger schools and urban and suburban schools reported providing training on safety procedures and discipline policies and practices for cyberbullying than schools with less than 300 students and rural schools, respectively.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 

Cyberbullying: What Schools Can Do

 

  Even though it occurs largely off campus, the vast majority of states have cyberbullying laws or policies that focus on school-aged students, and that require a written school policy and school sanctions. This has occurred in response to a number of cyberbullying suicides, and research linking cyberbullying to low self‐esteem, suicidal thoughts, academic problems, school violence, delinquent behavior, and family problems.

 

  While involving elements of teasing, taunting, bullying, and harassment, cyberbullying is somewhat unique and potentially more traumatic or harmful (than face-to-face bullying) because of the following factors.

 

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message describing these Factors]

 

  From an educational perspective, districts and schools need to consider the importance of:

 

• Having an explicit Cyberbullying section of their Student Handbook or Code of Conduct that extends existing discussions of Teasing, Bullying, and Harassment;

 

• Discussing district and school Cyberbullying policies and procedures with students and parents, from at least the Grade 3 level on, at the beginning of every school year;

 

• Providing at least quarterly sessions (or updates) on Cyberbullying education— integrating them into broader discussions on computer use and safety, virtual responsibility and etiquette, internet copyright and plagiarism, and social media limits and expectations; and

 

• Extending the discussions above to parents and guardians (in joint sessions with their children whenever possible) so that they can understand their potential responsibilities for cyber-safety and prosocial interactions, and support the school’s policies, procedures, and preventative approaches across the student body.

 

  The student training and/or discussions should occur in small classroom groups, and they should focus on helping students (a) to share their social media experiences and concerns; (b) to analyze and understand the effects of cyberbullying; (c) to teach students ways to respond to direct and indirect acts of cyberbullying; and (d) to facilitate students’ commitment to each other relative to maintaining consistently positive and responsible virtual interactions.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

Adding Organization and Value to Cyberbullying Prevention and Intervention

 

  Based on the surveys and information above, if a district wanted to prioritize its strategic cyberbullying planning, prevention, and implementation, it would focus on its middle/junior high schools, and then on its high schools.

 

  In addition, because cyberbullying is largely a peer-to-peer social interaction— albeit a negative one—that occurs mostly off school grounds and before/after school hours, districts and schools need to integrate a “peer control” element to the plan.

 

  In fact, there are at least eight interdependent elements to a comprehensive cyberbullying prevention to intervention plan.

 

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message with these eight Elements]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

Pulling in Student Voices, Discussion, Leadership, and Self-Advocacy

 

  Part of the plan outlined above—as briefly discussed in an earlier section of this Blog message—involves student (student-led) discussions that result in students taking the consistent and ongoing lead and responsibility for cyberbullying prevention and early response.

 

  As I have said in the past: There are more “of them” (meaning the students) than there are “of us” (meaning the adults). And if students and different peer groups become advocates and activists for the positive peer interactions that prevent bullying and cyberbullying, then that “leverage” will go a long way toward solving the problem.

 

  This means that schools need to give students time to talk with each other—to create, implement, evaluate, and sustain viable and powerful approaches that are integrated into the comprehensive plan above. This is an essential component because, once again, the students are the ones “doing” the cyberbullying, and most of it occurs outside of the school day and away from the “schoolhouse door.”

 

  And yet, some schools avoid this important step because of time, scheduling, and logistics, and some because they are uncomfortable or afraid of what might occur or be discussed during the student sessions.

 

  To overcome some of these “barriers of concern,” let’s briefly call on Brian Gorman, a Forbes Magazine executive business coach. In a July 19, 2019 article, You Can’t Just Transform Your Business, You Need to Transform Yourself As Well, Gorman stated:

 

Transformation is a change that cannot be reversed. It is not a “water, ice, water, steam, water” kind of change, but rather a “caterpillar, chrysalis, butterfly” change. It requires shifting how people think about things, how they do them and even what they are doing. Transformation is difficult to undertake, and even more difficult to sustain to a successful conclusion.

 

Most business owners and corporate executives intellectually understand these realities. What they tend to overlook is one additional truth: You can’t transform your organization without transforming yourself.

 

Organizations are ultimately reflections of their leadership. Employees not only hear the words of their leaders; they observe their actions. And, as is often said, “actions speak louder than words.” The words and actions of leaders at all levels, from the top of the organization down to frontline supervisors, have shaped the organization that you have today.

 

Reshaping it requires transforming the words and actions of its leaders.

_ _ _ _ _

 

  Gorman then asks transformational leaders to ask themselves five questions. I would like to reframe these questions as it relates to the importance of giving students time to plan and systemically address their own cyberbullying issues.

 

  To the administrative leaders of every middle and high school across the country, I respectfully ask you to ask yourselves the following questions (as they are relevant):

 

• “What can I let go of?”

 

Are there attitudes, expectations, beliefs, barriers, or past events that are holding you back from organizing (or delegating the responsibility for) a series of student leadership forums that can begin the process of generating a schedule of small group student discussion that will result in an approved student-directed plan to address cyberbullying?

 

How can you “let go” of these self-limiting self-statements to begin this process?

_ _ _ _ _

 

• “What is it that only I can do?”

 

As leaders, what are the actions—related to addressing cyberbullying—that only you can do or that only you should do? What district, parent, or community actions are ones that only you—in your leadership or administrative role—can take? What are the symbolic actions that you need to take to communicate that this issue and effort are essential?

 

When will you take these actions?

_ _ _ _ _

 

• “What are my anchors, and how do you have to adjust them?”

 

Gorman stated, “We all have anchors that hold us in place and provide a sense of stability. In order to successfully change, we have to change our relationship to some of those anchors, holding them more tightly, letting them out, or even letting them go completely.”

 

Do you have any “anchors” that need to be transformed? Relative to your student body? your staff? your parent or community constituencies? your administrative colleagues or district leaders?

_ _ _ _ _

 

• “What is undermining my success?”

 

This may be a generic question that may transcend the cyberbullying issue, or it may be centered on cyberbullying and your beliefs about it and how you prioritize it relative to other professional issues.

 

If you and your school or district are already successfully addressing cyberbullying, how are you sustaining these efforts over time? If you are not addressing this issue, at least collect the objective (student generated) data needed to determine if you should.

_ _ _ _ _

 

• “How do I strengthen my self-care?”

 

Here, I am going to suggest to my administrative colleagues that you look to your mental health staff (your counselors, social workers, and school psychologists) for your “self-care.” Cyberbullying is a psychoeducational phenomenon, and your mental health colleagues may have the knowledge, training, and perspectives that you need for your ultimate success.

_ _ _ _ _

 

Getting Your Students to Talk with Each Other

 

  Clearly, just because you provide your students with a forum within which to discuss cyberbullying, there is no assurance that they will talk to each other. This requires trust and protection, honesty and candor, commitment and communication, and foresight and self-insight.

 

  It also may require organization and preparation.

 

  For example, you may want to involve a “planning group” of students who represent different constituencies from across your student body, and who are well-respected by (not just popular among) their peers.

 

  You may want to conduct an anonymous survey of the student body so that you have not just information on different facets of cyberbullying in your school, but also information to discuss in your student groups.

 

  Finally, you may want to prepare a series of questions (embedded into some semi-structured group activities) that can guide the student (student-led) discussions.

 

  To this final end, below are some questions from a “Negotiations Preparation Checklist” from the Program on Negotiation at the Harvard University Law School. In many instances, all I did was to swap the word “negotiation” with the words “cyberbullying initiative and group discussion.” Feel free to adapt even these questions, or add your own.

 

  These questions are for the students.

 

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message with these 20 Questions]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

Summary

 

  Cyberbullying is a significant problem in today’s schools and among today’s youth. But solutions must be systemic, strategically planned and executed, and integrated into the safety and social, emotional, and behavioral processes of each school.

 

  It is critical that students be actively involved in the planning, and that schools give them as much responsibility for directly addressing the problem themselves as is realistic and possible.

 

  In the end, however, students must understand the potential effects of cyberbullying, that cyberbullies will be held accountable for their acts and involvement, that cyber-victims should report significant or persistent cyberbullying incidents to appropriate adults, and that schools have the right (and, in some states, are statutorily are required) to act—even when the cyberbullying occurs off-site.

 

  Said a different way, students need to know—relative to their schools’ behavioral expectations and accountability— that, as it relates to social media and cyberbullying in particular, they now live “in a 24/7 world.” If their use of social media (including cyberbullying) has the potential to negatively impact the climate and interactions within their school or district, administrators have the responsibility and right to act accordingly.

 

 While the ultimate goal is to prevent cyberbullying, schools still need to prepare and use a continuum of responses to deal with it strategically and definitively if the preventative activities are not successful.

 

  At the same time, when using any Code of Conduct consequence, administrative action, or social remediation, the ultimate goal is to motivate students to eliminate future cyberbullying incidents, while increasing their prosocial and social problem-solving interactions.

_ _ _ _ _

 

  As we begin the new school year, we know that schools need to establish positive, safe, proactive, and prosocial climates and interactions, and practices that focus on prevention and early response. When successful, these schools will likely have the highest levels of student engagement, and academic and behavioral success.

 

  This is not always easy, but it is always necessary.

 

  I look forward to your thoughts and comments regarding this Blog message. 

 

  Know that I am always available to provide a free hour of telephone consultation to those who want to discuss their students, school, or district needs. Feel free to contact me at any time if there is anything that I can do to support your work. . . now, and as we proceed into this new school year.

Best,

 

Howie