It (Legally) Needs to be Acceptable, Actionable, and Appropriate
[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]
_ _ _ _ _
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog
on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
Happy New Year !!!
While it is scary to be thinking about the next (2025-2026) school year when it is only New Years and the current academic year is only half over. . . know that your Superintendent, School Board, and other administrators are already framing out the Budget for next year.
And with, on average, 14% of your students (at least, nationally) on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) as students with disabilities (SWD), and the federal and your state department of education still grossly underfunds special education and related services. . . know that your anticipated special education needs must be accurately reflected in next year’s budget.
Today’s Blog provides some legal contexts and definitions—and some practical advice—so that you can begin the needs assessment process, prioritize your students’ 2025-2026 service-delivery needs, and secure your funds, resources, and services for next year.
To this end, we will focus on the
Three A’s. . . the need for IEPs to be Acceptable, Actionable,
and Appropriate. . . using three federal special education court cases
as support.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The First A: Annual IEP Reviews and Acceptability
In the next few months, many schools will begin the “IEP Annual Review Marathon” where every student’s current IEP is reviewed and rewritten for the next school year.
Critically, as this occurs, each IEP Team—which includes the parents/guardians of the SWD—must consider:
· Each student’s educational strengths and limitations as related to areas of disability and non-disability, respectfully;
· Age and grade level;
· Current IEP goals and methodologies;
· Student progress, evaluations, and outcomes; and
· How all of the variables above will be integrated in the IEP goals, services, supports, and interventions for next year.
Typically, this process is collaborative, collegial, and consensual.
But there are times when the parents are unhappy (or worse), and they contest the acceptability of important facets of the proposed IEP.
At its extreme, the parents might reject the IEP, take the district to a Due Process hearing, exhaust the available procedural and legal avenues for relief (e.g., dispute resolution or mediation), and bring the case to Federal Court.
Chris D. v. Montgomery County Board of Education (1990)
Many of you know that I am involved in many school law and special education court cases around the country as an Expert Witness (see www.projectachieve.info/services/expert-witness-services).
Four of my very first cases were heard in Federal Court as I helped defend a number of African-American students with disabilities who were attending the Montgomery County Schools in Montgomery, AL.
In one of these cases [Chris D. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 743 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990)], the issues directly related to a dispute on the acceptability of the IEP.
The facts of the Case were as follows:
The case Chris D. v. Montgomery County Board of
Education involved a 12-year-old boy named Chris D., who was emotionally
disabled. Chris’ mother filed a lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of
Education, claiming that the school system failed to provide Chris with a
"free appropriate public education" (FAPE) as required by the
Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA).
The court found that the school board did not meet its
obligations under the EHA and ordered that Chris be placed in a full-time
residential school to address his needs. This case highlights the importance of
ensuring that students with disabilities receive the appropriate support and
education they need.
1988-89 School Year
The 1988-89 school year was very difficult for Chris.
He was placed at Bear Elementary School in regular classes with special support
for his behavior problems. Almost immediately, Chris began exhibiting
behavioral problems which disrupted his classes and resulted in his frequent
referral to the principal's office. He became involved in fights with other
students, misbehaved in class and on the bus, used profanity, stole money from
school personnel, and beat on the walls of the principal's office when called
there for disciplining. The police were called in to intervene on at least one
occasion.
In November, the school system returned Chris to the
Davis Learning Center. At Davis, however, Chris continued to have severe
emotional and social problems similar to those he had at Bear. He used vulgar
language with teachers and other students, he refused to do his work, and he
disrupted classroom activities. Finally, in December, Chris’ mother removed him
from the school system because the principal at Davis had severely paddled
Chris for misbehaving as two other staff held him down. As a result of the
paddling, Chris became distrustful of the staff at Davis and exhibited a strong
desire for revenge.
In January 1989, Chris’ mother met with school
officials and requested that Chris be placed in a residential school where he
could be supervised 24 hours a day and could receive continuous behavior
training. School officials persuaded Chris’ mother to return him instead to
Bear Elementary where he could attend a special education class for the full
day. At Bear, Chris continued to manifest severe social and emotional
behavioral problems, and the police were again called in to help handle him.
1989-90 School Year
The 1989-90 school year was even more difficult for
Chris. His mother again requested residential placement, but the school system
refused to make any changes in his placement at Bear. Chris’ mother immediately
sought administrative review and, when that proved unsuccessful, filed this
lawsuit.
During the fall of 1989 Chris continued to exhibit
behavioral problems at Bear, including hitting other students, which resulted
in the police department being called on one occasion. In November 1989, Chris
was suspended from Bear. The problems continued after Chris returned from his
suspension until finally, on February 6, 1990, he was suspended indefinitely as
a result of a severe outburst of disruptive behavior.
After informal discussions with the court, the school
board and Chris’ mother agreed to return him to the special education class at
Bear, pending final resolution of this lawsuit. However, on March 28, less than
two weeks after returning to school, Chris became aggressive and disruptive
again. An officer from the local police department was again called and, after
an unsuccessful attempt to talk to Chris, the officer handcuffed Chris and
removed him from school grounds. Charges were subsequently brought against
Chris in juvenile court.
Chris’ mother again requested that the school board be required to place Chris in a residential school. The school board offered instead to return him to the Davis Learning Center. The United States Magistrate who heard the motions agreed with Chris’ mother and recommending that, pending disposition of the Federal lawsuit, the school board should be required to place Chris in a residential school. This recommendation was based on findings that for Chris, "any interim placement must include a behavior modification component" which requires "the opportunity to interact with other students" and that neither individual instruction at home nor individual instruction in an administrative building away from other children could meet this requirement. The magistrate also concluded that Davis Learning Center was inappropriate for Chris. The school board objected to this supplemental recommendation, and the case was tried in Federal Court with Chris’ mother prevailing.
The implications of the Case include the following:
· From the formal beginning of the case (the 1988-89 school year), there were no indications that a functional behavioral assessment was done of Chris’ behavior, or that there was any consideration (or use) of a behavioral intervention or positive behavioral interventions and support—consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA. . . which is referred to as EHA above).
· The use of corporal punishment was completely inappropriate (and emotionally harmful) to Chris as a SWD.
· Across the continuum of less to more restrictive special education placements, a residential setting is less restrictive than a home-bound setting.
· As a full member of an IEP Team, a parent or guardian has the right to not accept a new IEP, or to retract an earlier permission.
If a new IEP is recommending a
change in the student’s special education placement or service delivery
setting, the current placement or the placement on the last fully accepted IEP
must be maintained (this is the “stay-put” provision of IDEA).
_ _ _ _ _
Here and Now Recommendations
When parents are full partners in the IEP process and the (special) education programming for their child, their acceptance of the new/next IEP during the annual review process is typically routine and uneventful.
However, as above, when “surprises” arise at the annual review meeting, collaboration and trust can become strained. Such surprises include, for example:
· IEP goals that have not been addressed or evaluated over the past year;
· IEP interventions or related services that have not been (consistently) provided;
· Significant negative changes in the student’s academic or behavioral progress from previous years;
· The apparent lack of coordination and scaffolding between general education and special education teachers who share the teaching responsibilities for a student;
· A recommendation of a more or less restrictive setting, by the staff on the Team, which has not been previously discussed with the parents; or
· A decrease of services and supports—perhaps, because the student is moving from an elementary to a middle or a middle to a high school.
At this point in
the school year (i.e., January), if any of the above (or other) “surprises” are
impending for a specific SWD, it is in everyone’s best interest for school
staff and parents to discuss the status of a student’s special education
services and progress right now. . . well before the annual IEP review meeting
later this semester.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Second A: Writing and Delivering an Actionable IEP
One of Jerry Seinfeld’s most memorable T.V. Show moments occurs when he arrives at a Car Rental place to pick up a mid-size car that he has previously reserved. . . only to find that they “have run out of midsize cars,” and only have compact cars left.
The actual clip from the Show “tells the story” best.
Applying this to today’s discussion:
“You can write the IEP (and have it accepted), but you have to deliver the IEP.”
That is, once the IEP is “signed and sealed,” the district and school need to provide—with integrity—the personnel, services, resources, time, expertise, interventions, evaluations, and feedback written into the IEP.
Moreover, per the film clip above, IEP Teams should not be promising things in an IEP. . . with the hope that their district’s Special Education Supervisor will “bail them out” when the promises are due to be honored.
The IEP is a contract. And the provisions in the contract need to be Actionable and enacted.
Cory M. v. Montgomery County Board of Education (1990)
The second of the four cases where, in 1990, I served as an Expert Witness against the Montgomery County Schools in Montgomery, AL. involved an African-American elementary school student receiving special education services as a student with an emotional disability [Chris D. and Cory M. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 743 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D. Ala. 1990; Civ. A. No. 89-T-1165-N)]. Note that this Case was merged with the Chris D. case above as the lawyers attempted to merge the cases into a class action suit.
The facts of the Case were as follows:
The case Cory M. v. Montgomery County Board of
Education involved a student named Cory M., who was emotionally disabled
and claimed that the Montgomery County Board of Education failed to provide him
with a "free appropriate public education" as required by the
Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). Cory's parents filed the lawsuit on his
behalf.
Cory was a 13-year old boy in the fifth grade in the
Montgomery County public school system. Since he entered the system as a
first-grader in 1983, Cory achieved little academically and exhibited severely
disruptive behavior. Nevertheless, he was not evaluated to determine if he was
educationally handicapped until 1987, and only began receiving special
education in 1989.
Cory's parents alleged that the school board violated
a number of procedural and substantive requirements of the EHA. The essential
dispute in this case revolves around whether Cory was receiving educational
benefit from his current placement or whether significant changes in his
educational program along with related services were necessary to provide him
with a "free appropriate public education" as required by the EHA. Cory's
previous schooling and performance were relevant to determining whether, under the
EHA, school system officials were adequately serving his present (at the time
the Case was filed) educational needs. Therefore, the court turned first to
Cory's background as a student in the Montgomery County public schools.
Prior to the 1988-89 School Year
Cory experienced problems from the time he entered the
first grade at Patterson Elementary School in Montgomery in September 1983. He
failed all his major academic subjects and was required to repeat the first
grade. Although Cory was promoted to a higher grade after each of the following
three school years, he continued to receive failing marks in virtually all his
academic courses. Moreover, Cory's conduct grew progressively worse during this
period. By the third grade, his conduct marks had deteriorated from poor to
failing.
School system officials, however, did not evaluate
Cory to determine whether his difficulties in school might be attributable to
an educational handicap until 1987, as he was completing the third grade. When
a team of special education personnel did evaluate him in June of that year,
they considered only whether he might be educably mentally retarded, despite
the fact that his test results and school records suggested he suffered instead
from an emotional disability. The committee determined that Cory was not
retarded and concluded he was not entitled to special education.
Thus instead of receiving special education, Cory was
promoted to the fourth grade and attended Davis Elementary School during the
1987-88 school year. Again, Cory received failing grades in most academic
areas, exhibited poor conduct, and was held back to repeat the fourth grade the
following year. School system officials did not reevaluate Cory that school
year and did not provide him with any special education.
The 1988-89 School Year
Cory's disruptive behavior grew even more severe in
the early weeks of his second year in the fourth grade at Davis Elementary
School. During the first semester of the 1988-89 school year, Cory was
repeatedly disciplined by his teachers and principal for verbal abuse, hitting
other students, and refusing to follow directions, and was ultimately suspended
several times for misconduct. Cory also continued to have academic
problems, despite the fact that he was repeating a grade.
In October 1988, Cory's parents asked school system
officials to reevaluate Cory to determine whether he had an educational
handicap entitling him to special education. In November 1988, after an
evaluation of Cory, a committee of special education personnel concluded that
he was educably mentally retarded and recommended his placement in a class
exclusively for educably mentally retarded students.
In February 1989, Cory's parents told school system
officials that they objected to the IEP adopted for Cory as well as to the
evaluation. and placement of Cory as
educably mentally retarded. School system officials agreed to reclassify Cory
as both educably mentally retarded and emotionally conflicted, but made no
changes in Cory's IEP.
In July 1989, an Independent Evaluation was completed
that concluded that Cory was not mentally retarded, and recommended that Cory
be placed in a self-contained classroom for emotionally conflicted children. At
the urging of Cory's parents, school system officials re-classified Cory as only
emotionally conflicted and agreed to place him in a class designated for
emotionally conflicted or learning disabled students for the 1989-90 school
year.
The 1989-90 School Year
Although it began on a positive note, the 1989-90
school year proved an extremely difficult one for Cory. In September 1989,
Cory's teacher wrote a new IEP for him, which was adopted at a meeting among
herself, Cory's mother, and a special education supervisor. Like Cory's
previous IEP's, the new plan included only broad, generic objectives and vague
methods for monitoring Cory's progress. Moreover, despite Cory's extensive
record of behavioral difficulties, the new IEP, like those before it, contained
no mention of any goals or techniques for teaching Cory to control his
conduct.
The absence of any program for addressing Cory's
behavior resulted in him manifesting more severe social and emotional problems
than ever before. Although school officials made various efforts to control
him, including pulling him out of regular classes, locking him in the
classroom, calling his parents in for conferences, and assigning him to sit in
the office with a special "crisis" teacher, Cory's misbehavior
escalated through the second six weeks of the school year. Physical restraints
were employed and, early November 1989, school system officials instructed
Cory's parents to keep him out of school until further notice.
Cory returned to class in January 1990. While his
conduct and school work initially improved, it regressed again by Spring. In
April 1990, apparently in light of Cory's growing misbehavior, school officials
reassembled a "security desk" that physically confined Cory. Overall,
Cory's behavior deteriorated in spite of the fact that Cory's teacher had, in
February 1990, modified Cory's IEP on her own to include, for the first time,
certain general behavioral goals and objectives.
_ _ _ _ _
The Court found that the Montgomery County Board of
Education did not meet the educational requirements of the EHA and ordered the Board
to create a new Individualized Educational Program (IEP) for Cory and provide
appropriate counseling and training for his parents. The issue at-hand was not
the quality of the IEP, but the fact that the Board of Education did not have
the resources and, especially, the expertise to implement the interventions
written into the IEP with integrity.
The Due Process Hearing
In December 1989, a due process hearing was conducted,
as requested by Cory's parents, to examine whether the school board's treatment
of Cory violated the EHA. At the hearing, Cory's parents argued that the board
had improperly identified, evaluated, and placed Cory, contrary to the
requirements of the EHA. They asked the hearing officer to order the board to
pay an independent consultant selected by them to develop an appropriate IEP
for Cory and to train and instruct teachers and staff in how to implement such
an educational program.
Cory's parents also requested that the school board be
required to provide them with counseling and other services to enable them to
help manage Cory's behavior and contribute to his education. The board
responded that it had satisfied the EHA because Cory was receiving "some
educational benefit" from his current program. The board also argued that
its teachers and staff were already adequately trained and that school system
officials had made sufficient efforts to involve Cory's mother in his
education.
The hearing officer determined that the school board
was not providing Cory with a free appropriate public education as required by
the EHA. He found that the school system's teachers and staff had failed to
identify Cory's handicap in a timely manner or to develop and implement an
appropriate, legally adequate educational program for Cory. He also suggested
that these personnel lacked the ability to develop a program to address Cory's
educational needs.
The hearing officer ordered school system officials
and Cory's parents to arrange an independent evaluation to be used in
formulating a new IEP. Subsequently, the school board agreed to pay Dr.
Howard Knoff, the outside consultant retained by Cory's parents in this case,
to develop an IEP for Cory.
However, the hearing officer did not order the school board to implement the recommendations of this expert in developing a new IEP for Cory, and did not address Cory's parents' requests for training of teachers and staff and counseling for themselves. Cory's parents have brought this action under the EHA challenging the hearing officer's decision. See 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(e)(2). As required by the EHA, the court has read the record of the administrative proceeding and conducted a trial at which each side has presented additional evidence.
In the end, the Federal Court sided with the parents, and ordered that (a) the IEP that I wrote be accepted; and (b) I be hired by the District for 18 months to train, coach, and evaluate the personnel responsible for implementing the IEP with integrity.
[Parenthetically,
the District extended my contract for another 18 months without a court order,
and I was asked to train a number of additional schools and staff in
multi-tiered social, emotional, and behavioral interventions.]
_ _ _ _ _
The implications of the Case include the following:
· The school system did not assess Cory for special education eligibility in a timely way. In today’s terms, a district cannot use its early intervention RtI/MTSS process to delay the assessment of a student for special education eligibility if someone (including the parents) believes that the student is not succeeding due to a disability.
· Beyond the fact that Cory was originally misclassified and misplaced as “educably mentally retarded” (this term has been modified to “intellectual or cognitive disability”) his initial IEPs did not have social-behavioral goals despite the ever-present “emotionally conflicted” disability classification.
· Critically, if or once present, these goals should have focused on teaching Cory the emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping skills that he needed. . . rather than only specifying what would occur when he was emotionally out of control.
· Even though, early on, the parents accepted Cory’s IEPs once written, the lack of Cory’s academic and behavioral progress in school—per his IEPs—demonstrated that they were not appropriate in that the district did not have the expertise to either identify appropriate interventions or to implement them.
· IDEA permits parents to request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE)—which Cory’s parents used to demonstrate that he was not educably mentally retarded.
· However, IDEA does not have a provision whereby parents can request (and receive at the district’s expense) an Independent Educational Intervention Consultation, which could be employed when everyone agrees on a student’s disability classification, but when parents disagree on the services, supports, and interventions being recommended by the district for the IEP.
Currently, the case law defers to
districts as “the educational expert,” and IDEA states that districts must “consider”
the recommendations of an outside expert—but are not bound by them.
_ _ _ _ _
Here and Now Recommendations
Clearly, relative to the implications here, districts and schools need to evaluate—right now—the current status of all SWDs and whether the personnel, services, resources, time, expertise, interventions, evaluations, and feedback written in their respective IEPs are being delivered.
Then, they need to project these students’ needs into the next 2025-2026 school year so that budget process that, as above, has already begun for next year, is appropriate.
All of this is
focused on ensuring that the IEPs that have been accepted by the parents of
SWDs will be fully actionable.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
FAPE—a “free and appropriate public education”—is one of the most-common reasons why parents of SWDs bring districts to due process or to court.
Thus, at this mid-point in the school year, it is recommended that districts and schools analyze the IEP-driven progress monitoring data being collected for every SWD to gauge whether she or he is receiving an appropriate education.
IDEA’s definition of “appropriate” is largely defined by the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (137 S. Ct. 988).
The Endrew F. Supreme Court Case (2017)
The Endrew F. case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017, involved a student with autism, Endrew F., who was educated in Colorado's Douglas County School District. Endrew F.’s parents sought reimbursement for private special education services, arguing that the public school program did not provide an appropriate education. The Supreme Court's decision rejected the "de minimis" standard that had previously been used to determine the adequacy of an IEP.
Instead, the Court held that an IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances. This decision established a higher standard for educational benefit under IDEA, with a greater expectation that IEPs be appropriately ambitious and challenging.
The facts of the Case were as follows:
Endrew, a child with
autism, attended school in the Douglas County School District from kindergarten
through fourth grade. By the fourth grade, Endrew's parents believed his
academic and functional progress had stalled, leading them to remove him from
public school and enroll him in a specialized private school where he made
significant progress.
Endrew's parents sought reimbursement for the costs of the private school
placement by filing for a due process administrative hearing. They argued that
the new placement was necessary for Endrew to receive FAPE. The administrative
hearing decision found against the parents, concluding that the public school
had provided Endrew with FAPE. This decision was upheld by a federal district
court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that an IEP is
adequate under the IDEA if it is calculated to confer an educational benefit
that is "merely more than de minimis."
However, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this standard, stating that an
educational program providing a child "merely more than de minimis"
progress from year to year can "hardly be said to have been offered an
education at all." The Court held that the correct standard of FAPE is
whether a school district has presented "an IEP reasonably calculated to
enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s
circumstances."
This decision emphasized
the importance of the unique needs and abilities of the particular student when
assessing the adequacy of the individualized educational plan of that
student.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative to the implications of the Case:
· The Endrew F. case has had a profound impact on special education law, requiring educators to understand the differences between minimal progress and meaningful educational benefit as they work to serve students under IDEA.
· The Case has also highlighted the need for more specialized IEPs that focus on facilitating students’ academic and functional skills and progress, driving educators to design IEPs with specific, measurable goals that are linked with appropriate interventions.
·
Finally, the Case requires special education
practices, whereby SWDs have access to instruction that meets their unique
needs and promotes their mastery, motivation, and success. These practices
must facilitate meaningful educational benefits through individually-tailored
services, and appropriate progress monitoring.
_ _ _ _ _
Here and Now Recommendations
Consistent with the implications above, districts and schools need to evaluate all of their SWDs right now to validate that they are making appropriate progress and receiving the educational benefits consistent with their specific disabilities, the severity of their respective disabilities, and the outcomes outlined in their IEPs.
For students not making appropriate progress, there is still time this year to re-evaluate the services, supports, and interventions they are receiving so that mid-course corrections can be made.
For students who
are making appropriate progress, analyses can begin to determine what services,
supports, and/or interventions are most responsible for their success so that
these can be carried into the 2025-2026 school year through their next IEPs.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Even though the academic year is only half over, district leaders are already working on the budget, initiatives, and activities for the next, 2025-2026 school year.
Moreover, as most districts, on average, (a) have 14% of their students on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) as students with disabilities (SWDs), and (b) do not receive sufficient special education federal or state funding, this Blog discusses how to organize the needs assessment process so that SWDs’ service-delivery needs are appropriately prioritized, staffed, resourced, and funded for next year.
The needs assessment and budgeting should be organized around the annual rewriting of each student’s IEP, and “The Three A’s.”
Specifically, each new IEP needs to be written such that it is (a) Acceptable—to the parents of each SWD; (b) Actionable—such that IEP services, supports, and interventions are actually delivered. . . with integrity; and (c) Appropriate—so that each SWD makes the progress that is consistent with their disability-related circumstances.
Three specific, precedent-setting special education court cases are described to demonstrate the importance for each of the Three A’s. . . two of which personally involved me as an Expert Witness.
In the end, separate Action Steps are recommended in the Three A’s. . . steps that districts and schools should seriously consider right now.
With these steps and the needed budgeting,
districts and schools will be (a) more prepared to maximize their services and
supports in the coming school year; (b) SWDs will make greater academic and
behavioral progress; (c) parents of SWDs will remain full and collaborative
partners with their respective districts on behalf of their children; and (d) districts
will more likely avoid the due process or court litigation that results when
IEPs are unacceptable, unactionable, and inappropriate.
_ _ _ _ _
A New Podcast and Professional Development Resource for You
While I hope that you had a great holiday season and break. . . schools have reopened and there is a lot of work to do.
Over the break, we engaged in a new partnership and developed a new 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 bimonthly Blog message that I publish, 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 already created a Podcast Archive of more than 35 additional and separate podcasts reflecting 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.
Of course, 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]
