The Over-Simplification of Education: When Evidence-based Practices are Diluted, They No Longer are Evidence-Based

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

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   Earlier this week, I was reading an Education Week interview with Sharon Hoover, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Discussing the reasons for so many students’ current mental health challenges, Hoover emphasized that the fixation on social media as the primary root cause is counterproductive.

   Indeed, any educator doing an effective root cause analysis knows that (a) there are many reasons why some students present with the same social-emotional “problem,” and that (b) multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions need to be linked to person-specific analyses completed on individual students.

   Given this, Hoover identified (with some expansion by me) a “high-hit” list of possible reasons for students’ current social, emotional, and behavioral issues in their schools:

·       Online and in-person teasing, bullying, and harassment

·       Schoolwork and homework pressures, and being “academically behind”

·       Grades and graduation—including college/job selection, costs, and attendance

·       School safety and the threat of (gun-related and other) physical violence and injury

·       Gender identity conflicts (self and others), peer/social status, relationships and dating

·       Sleep, diet/nutrition, physical health, exercise

·       Living in poverty, along with housing and food insecurity

·       (Pandemic-related) grief and loss

·       Local/national/world events, and political divisiveness

·       Cultural, minority background, religious, disability, and/or sexual orientation stresses

·       Climate-related and other natural disasters

   Clearly, once confirmed, each of these underlying reasons may require significantly different services, supports, or interventions. Thus, the importance of completing the root cause analysis before prescribing interventions is not just essential. . . it is the ethically- and functionally-necessary thing to do.

   Indeed, the wrong student intervention both delays the correct intervention, and it potentially exacerbates the original problem, making it more resistant to change.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Pressure to Over-Simplify Educational Procedures

   While students’ mental health concerns are a major concern in today’s schools, and—per Hoover’s point above that we cannot explain this concern by “fixating” only on social media as the primary cause. . .

   . . . my essential focus in this Blog is the over-simplification of education, and the fact that—when we over-simplify—we end up implementing inconsistent, incomplete, inadequate, or invalid procedures, practices, and interventions.

   Once again, relative to students, this serves to delay the correct approaches; it may change, add to, or exacerbate the original problem; and it may make students (and/or staff) more resistant to the “next” (even when correct) academic or social, emotional, or behavioral approaches needed.

   Said a different way:

   Implementing intervention is not a benign act, it is a strategic act.

   The goal is not to “implement interventions.” The goal is to implement the right interventions—the first time—that facilitate positive and sustained changes in the area(s) of student concern.

_ _ _ _ _

Back Story I: Designing Effective Multi-Tiered Services

   When consulting across the country, I am often asked to help districts and schools redesign or upgrade their multi-tiered systems of supports—the continuum of academic or social, emotional, and behavioral instruction, services, supports, and interventions that facilitate learning and mastery for all students across (typically) three-tiers of approaches that increase in specificity and intensity.

   Parenthetically, every district in the United States—per the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—is required by law to have a defensible and student-centered multi-tiered process.

   But ESEA’s definition of a “multi-tiered system of supports” is broad, letting each district decide how to address its own students relative to their academic and behavioral needs. Moreover—reinforcing this “local needs and response” orientation—the law’s benchmark term appears in lower-case with no capitalization or “MTSS” acronym.

   Thus, the primary federal education law that guides school instruction (ESEA) does not require the MTSS (capitalized) framework recommended either by the U.S. Department of Education (or its Office of Special Education Programs), or any State Department of Education—unless, the latter has legally codified a specific MTSS process.

   Given this—after a needs and status assessment, a resource and assets analysis, and a success and gap evaluation—my multi-tiered consultations at the district or school levels often focus on developing a user-friendly multi-tiered procedural Flowchart to guide the “journey” along the instruction to intervention continuum.

   This Flowchart begins in a school’s general education classrooms with (a) effective, differentiated (academic and social-emotional learning) instruction and classroom management, (b) progress monitoring and mastery assessments for all students, and (c) classroom-based modifications and strategies for students who are struggling to succeed.

   The Flowchart then proceeds through a data-driven, problem-solving decision-tree process to identify the root causes of the academic or behavioral challenges that still exist for some students. . . followed by strategic (Tier 2) or intensive (Tier 3) consultation, services, supports, or interventions as needed.

   Significantly, the eligibility and service processes required by Section 504 (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and special education (through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—IDEA), respectively, are also woven into the Flowchart.

   The result of entire consultation process is both (a) a multi-tiered system of supports Flowchart uniquely tailored to the district or school(s) I am working with; and (b) a Guidebook that fully describes the Flowchart, and provides staff with the necessary forms and resources.

_ _ _ _ _

   If your District or School is interested in our sample Multi-Tiered System of Supports Guidebook, complete with our recommended Flowchart and implementation forms, go to:

[CLICK HERE]

   If your District or School is interested in our nine-session on-line/on-demand Course (which includes the Guidebook above)—

Implementing Effective Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports: Academic and Social-Emotional Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention, go to:

[CLICK HERE]

for the Course Syllabus, a free research-to-practice Report, and a free 35-minute Introductory Video.

_ _ _ _ _

Back Story II: Undermining the Design of Effective Multi-Tiered Services

   Periodically, after the initial consultations that result in a district or school’s personalized Multi-Tiered Flowchart and Guidebook, Administrators get fearful.

   The origin of the Fear is often their concern (a) that the Flowchart and/or Guidebook appears too “lengthy, complex, or time-consuming,” and (b) that large numbers of staff members (or a small number of critical staff members) will not “buy-into” and, hence, actively or passively resist or reject the process.

   The result of the Fear is then a request to simplify, cut-down, or “streamline” the process into a “shell” of what it was.

   [Indeed, I have recently been asked to compress a district’s entire multi-tiered services Flowchart into a “One-Pager.”]

   The result of the Cut-Down, as alluded to earlier, is a diluted synopsis that often becomes the “living” public or operational document to the point that no one remembers, attends to, or uses the complete Flowchart.

   Once this occurs, experience has shown, the school’s multi-tiered process deteriorates into an inconsistent, incomplete, inadequate, or invalid set of procedures resulting in ineffective student services, supports, and interventions. . .

   . . . when these approaches are desperately required by the most-needy students in the school.

   Said a Different Way: Rather than focus on effective implementation science, staff communication and collaboration, administrative leadership and supervised accountability, and student commitment and advocacy. . .

   . . . some Education Leaders, instead, “cater to the maddening crowd” by over-simplifying crucial educational procedures that then undermine and negate their efficacy.

   Hence, this Blog’s title.

   When we over-simplify education, we invalidate evidence-based practices.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

“Never Would I” Analogies

   The request to simplify a district’s multi-tiered system of supports—figuratively—into a one-page flowchart is like:

·       Asking a Medical Professor to simplify a complex operation into a single page of crib-notes

·       Asking the Conductor of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra to reduce a four-movement symphony into a single sheet of music

·       Asking a Computer Programmer to shorten the code, sending a rocket into space, to a few lines

·       Asking a Car Mechanic to streamline the directions for repairing a transmission to a single flashcard

    Clearly, no one would make these requests. . . or make these requests and expect a “job well done.”

   But, let’s get “closer to home.”

_ _ _ _ _

   From a district or school perspective, no one would:

·       Ask a Superintendent to simplify the strategic planning process needed to establish the District’s next Five-Year Strategic Plan

·       Ask the Chief Financial Officer to reduce the District’s Chart of Accounts and multi-million dollar budget projections for the next year to a single page print-out

·       Ask a district’s K-12 Math Curriculum Selection Committee to evaluate its top-three curricula by choosing the one that looks easiest to implement

·       Ask a Building Principal to condense Danielson’s Teacher Evaluation System to five items when evaluating teachers for tenure

·       Ask a School Psychologist to shorten a comprehensive special education assessment report to a one-page abstract

·       Ask a Teacher to streamline the instruction of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” to twenty minutes

·       Ask an out-of-district Consultant to summarize the professional development and coaching on the science of reading to one hour

_ _ _ _ _

   I think the point has been made.

   Whether it is an in-house district or school process, or an out-sourced consultation or professional development, detail and integrity matter.

   Educational leaders who expect their staff to embrace the comprehensiveness of their selected initiatives, need to similarly embrace the comprehensiveness of their colleagues’ contributions. . . especially when that comprehensiveness is required to attain desired student outcomes.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Education Week recently published an article about the ten educational “buzzwords” that many educators hate and would like “retired.”

   One of the words is “fidelity.”

   While it would be important to understand the thoughts, emotions, or reactions triggered by this word, this is a tragic reflection on the state of education in our country.

   If we, as educators, are not dedicated to making objective, data-informed decisions—at the district, school, staff, and student levels, and implementing instruction and multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions with fidelity, then are we really fully dedicated to our students, their best interests, and their best educational outcomes?

   This Blog, then, is about doing even hard and complex things the right way.

   In summary: While students’ mental health concerns are a major concern in today’s schools, this Blog’s essential focus is the over-simplification of education, and the fact that—when we over-simplify—we end up implementing inconsistent, incomplete, inadequate, or invalid, procedures, practices, and interventions.

   Once again, relative to students, this serves to delay the correct approaches. It may change, add to, or exacerbate the original problem. And, it may make students (and/or staff) more resistant to the academic or social, emotional, or behavioral changes needed.

   While most educators work each day “with full plates,” we cannot substitute quality for expediency.

   If we do, we will never solve the (student) challenges that are one of the reasons why our plates are so full.

_ _ _ _ _

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

   While there is one more Blog yet to come this year, I wish all of you a “Happy Holiday” season on both a personal and professional level.

   When we return in January, we have five to six more months to positively impact our students, staff and colleagues, schools, and other educational settings.

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

Best,

Howie

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

Twelve Critical Components for (Continuous) School, Staff, and Student Improvement: Motivation Cannot Compensate for a System with Systemic Deficits

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

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   While I love to celebrate the successes attained by the students, staff, and schools that I work with as a consultant, part of my job is to focus on the “half-empty” glasses, facilitating the processes needed to “fill them to the top.”

   And while it is important for districts and schools to celebrate successful strategic planning and professional development sessions (something that seems to be recently rampant on my LinkedIn feed), these celebrations seem somewhat hollow when many of our schools still:

·       Have large percentages of students not attaining academic proficiency, and not demonstrating (at least) grade-level skill mastery in reading, mathematics, science, and writing/language arts; 

·       Have large percentages of students not learning and mastering, and not demonstrating effective grade-level interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional awareness, control, communication, and healthy coping skills;

·       “Qualify” large numbers of non-disabled students as “students with disabilities” because (a) they have not provided sound academic and social-emotional skills instruction or remediation at the general education (Tier I) level, and (b) special education classrooms are the only places where strategic interventions are available;

·       Are not providing effective, equitable, and high quality educational services to students from poverty, whose first language is not English, who are homeless or have mental health issues, or who have significant out-of-school stresses or lived traumas; and

·       Are not aware of, or are unresponsive to, explicit or implicit biases that result in disproportionate educational opportunities and negative attention and discipline for students of color and with disabilities.

   I distinctly remember a consultation a few years ago with a district in Wisconsin. I had been virtually coaching a number of their district and school leaders on a monthly basis for over three years, and was asked to come on-site to conduct a special education/multi-tiered services needs assessment.

   Based on my knowledge (from the coaching) of some of the dysfunctional relationships and processes within the district, and having analyzed multiple years of district and school student and staff outcomes, the need assessment’s first on-site meeting was with the two Assistant Superintendents.

   Early in the session, it became apparent that they wanted only to discuss the “successes” within the district. When I identified “success gaps” and critical areas of needed improvement (one of the goals of a needs assessment), they reacted defensively and defiantly.

   After our meeting, they immediately went to the Superintendent who then met with me and, in essence, cancelled the remaining needs assessment activities as well as the contract.

   Clearly, the Superintendent was concerned more about the hurt feelings of her two colleagues than her (and their) accountability to all of the students in the district. . . especially those who were not being served effectively and equitably, and those who were disaffected, underachieving, or failing.

   [Parenthetically, based on the data and information collected, I still wrote and sent a Needs Assessment Report to the Superintendent and her staff, attempting to refocus their attention to all of their students and their accountability to them.]  

   I reminded them: If 67% of your students are academically achieving at the Proficiency level or better, then 33% of your students are not.

   It is fine to celebrate the glass being two-thirds full, but what is being done to fill up the entire glass?

   And what about the schools that need to fill up 85% or more of their glasses?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Tale of Two More School Improvement Districts

   Over the years, I have partnered with many districts and schools, helping them with comprehensive school improvement. I have worked with some of the highest functioning districts in the country—those that want to “keep their edge” in the face of an every-changing educational landscape—and with some of the lowest functioning districts.

   Indeed, when working at the Arkansas Department of Education for 13 years (during the No Child Left Behind years), my Project ACHIEVE school improvement model was the U.S. Department of Education-approved approach for every Focus School in the state.

_ _ _ _ _

   When working with one school district for over five years, there was a “revolving door” of superintendents (and interims) brought in by a well-meaning but uninformed Board that did not understand what skills and experiences predicted the best candidate hire. In fact, at one point, they hired a superintendent with virtually no educational, administrative, or supervisory experience.

   It was not until they hired a superintendent who (a) understood curriculum, instruction, social-emotional learning, and multi-tiered services, and who (b) was not afraid of supervising, coaching, and holding district leaders, school principals, general and special education teachers, and related service professionals accountable to explicit, outcome-generating interactions that there appeared to be true “school improvement hope” for the district.

_ _ _ _ _

   When working with another school district for over five years, we never got past the “good ole boy” culture that prevented the leadership from comprehensively and transparently analyzing every important component (see the Section below) of school improvement and success. This culture resulted in the district being designated a “School in Need of Improvement” by the state department of education.

   Even after the designation, the district’s Leadership/School Improvement Team stayed stuck in the belief that they simply needed to motivate their students and staff to “work harder and be more committed to achievement.”

   This was evident during “planning” conversations focused more on selecting the incentives and consequences needed to change people’s motivation, as opposed to conversations confronting the fact that students were not academically achieving because (a) of poor or inconsistent curriculum, instruction, social-emotional learning, and multi-tiered services; and (b) leaders who were not changing the culture by beginning the hard work of supervising, coaching, and holding their colleagues accountable to effective practice and student services and outcomes.

   But an embedded problem here was that, with all due respect, many of the district’s leaders did not know that they needed to analyze and change the two areas above.

   Instead, they truly believed that their district’s low-functioning school improvement status was because of unmotivated students and staff.

   [Figuratively, they thought their Basketball Team had the players with the needed skills and talent; they were just not effectively motivating these players.]

   Hence, the district’s leaders had school improvement skill deficits on top of their staffs’ curriculum and instruction skill deficits. These leaders did not know what to do to effectively improve their system. And they did not know that they did not know.

   At both levels then—relative to the students and staff, and the district’s leaders, an important school improvement principle was evident:

   You can’t motivate students, staff, or systems out of a Skill Deficit.

That is:

   You can’t change student outcomes or staff behavior using motivational approaches when the root cause of their gaps involve Skill Deficits. . . and

   You can’t change school improvement outcomes at the district leadership level using motivational approaches when the root cause of their gaps involve school improvement Skill Deficits.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Twelve Evidence-based Components of Effective Schools: A School Improvement Template

   Relative to continuous school (and district) improvement, the same research-to-practice components are used for both high-functioning districts that want to extend their progress and “keep their edge,” and low-functioning districts that need to renew their progress and “get off of the edge.”

   Below are brief descriptions of the twelve evidence-based components of effective schools and how they achieve successful, continuous, and consistent school improvement.

   In the hands of experienced, data-driven school improvement experts (whether inside or outside of a school district), the current status, strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and needs related to the specific policies, practices, and procedures within these components must be analyzed. This should result in the design and implementation of a well-resourced and realistic action plan that is evaluated (and modified as needed) on an ongoing basis.

Component 1: Strategic Planning

   Effective schools are dedicated to continuous improvement across the entire school and schooling process. This is accomplished by focusing on all twelve of the components outlined here and how they work interdependently to maximize students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes.

   Periodically, schools need to complete (a) comprehensive status and needs assessments, (b) SWOT and gap analyses (of their organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), and (c) asset and resource evaluations so they can effectively leverage resources, maximize and build capacity, close gaps, and minimize the impact of conditions that cannot be changed.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 2: Shared Leadership

   Effective schools have effective formal and informal administrative and staff educational leaders who lead with competence and by example.

   Effective schools also have shared leadership committees and/or teams that support school professional development, curriculum and instruction, classroom management, multi-tiered services, and parent and community outreach goals and activities. Every staff member is on at least one school-level committee, and each committee has representatives from every grade level (for elementary and middle schools) or instructional department (for high schools).

   In their respective focus areas, all committees and/or teams are ultimately focused on the successful attainment of all students’ multi-tiered academic and social, emotional, and behavioral goals.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 3: Professional Development

   Staff in effective schools receive ongoing training, mentoring, coaching, evaluation, feedback, and supervision (when needed) in the development and implementation of all school and schooling processes.

   In each area of training, educators’ skill and implementation mastery is tracked in their:

·       Understanding and Mastery of Information, Content, and Knowledge; 

·       Ability to Implement and Adapt—with integrity—relevant Skills and Applications; and

·       Implementation Confidence and Competence on an ongoing basis leading to independence, autonomy, and expert status.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 4: Data Management Systems

   Effective schools have a computer-assisted Student Information/Data Management System and ongoing data collection, analysis, and reporting processes to formatively and summatively evaluate progress toward explicit short- and long-term school, staff, parent, and student goals.

   This data management system should help staff monitor the academic and behavioral progress of all students. For students receiving strategic or intensive multi-tiered or special education services, it should be able to track the implementation and efficacy of all existing student intervention and intervention plans.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 5: School Climate/Behavior Management

   Effective schools have a plan and implement a school-wide Social-Emotional Learning/Positive Behavioral Support System (SEL/PBSS) that facilitates school safety and positive classroom climates through students’ (and staff’s) use of interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping skills. Embedded in this are the cultural competence skills that address racism and implicit or unconscious bias.

   This SEL/PBSS system is embedded in a multi-tiered system of services, supports, strategies, and interventions that range from prevention to strategic intervention to crisis management and intensive approaches. The latter approaches are especially important for students with persistent and/or significant social, emotional, and behavioral challenges.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 6: Academic/SEL Curriculum & Assessment

   Effective schools have publicly accessible documents that outline the scope-and-sequence of all academic and social-emotional goals and objectives—from preschool through high school—that guide lesson development, instruction, evaluation, and outcomes at every grade level in the school.

   These scope and sequence documents are cross-walked and are consistent with state standards and benchmarks, and they are used as formative and summative evaluation guides to track, as above, student learning, progress, and mastery.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 7: Academic Instruction and Engagement

   Staff in effective schools receive ongoing training and supervision—and  have guided discussions with follow-up—in effective classroom organization, behavior management, academic student grouping, and other approaches that maximize students' time on task, academic and instructional engagement, and effective use of allocated academic/behavioral learning time.

   Staff use effective and flexible instructional group patterns and configurations with their students to differentiate instruction, maximize learning outcomes, and create and maintain positive, safe, and cooperative learning environments.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 8: Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

   Effective  schools  have  a  written  document  that  outlines  the  process, components, and elements of their multi-tiered system of supports.

  This document guides professional development and implementation relative to how:

·       General education teachers monitor students’ academic and behavioral progress, determine the need for, and provide early intervention support for students not making academic or behavioral progress;

·       Data-based diagnostic or functional assessments are conducted by related services and other staff to determine the root causes of students’ persistent or significant academic struggles or social, emotional, or behavioral challenges; and

·       Assessment  results  are  linked  to  appropriate  multi-tiered services,  supports, strategies, or interventions, and how these are evaluated.

   Effective multi-tiered systems of support focus predominantly on the intensity, integrity, and efficacy of services and supports that students need and receive.

   Involved here are:

·       Grade, department, and building-level teams that provide prereferral and post-assessment interventions for students not making sufficient academic and/or social, emotional, or behavioral progress.

·       Related service professionals (e.g., school psychologists, counselors, social workers, and others) who work with or are on these teams, providing consultation and intervention support to general and special education teachers along the school’s multi-tiered continuum.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 9: Data-based Problem-Solving

   When students demonstrate persistent or significant academic or social, emotional, or behavioral challenges, a data-based problem-solving process is used to:

·       Identify, clarify, and contextualize the problem;

·       Functionally analyze the problem to determine its root causes;

·       Link  the  root  cause  analysis  results  to  strategic  or  intensive services, supports, strategies, or interventions; and

·       Evaluate the integrity of the interventions, and the short- and long- term student-focused results.

   In effective schools, instructional, specialized support (school psychologists, counselors, social workers, special educators, intervention personnel, etc.), and administrative staff receive ongoing training, evaluation, feedback, and supervision (when needed) in data-based problem-solving processes.

   This training includes the collection and analysis of student information and data, profession-specific skills in different interventions areas, and the ability to integrate effective consultation processes into the data-based problem-solving process.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 10: Academic & SEL/PBSS Interventions

   Staff in effective schools have the skills to provide (a) effective differentiated academic and social skills instruction for all students; and (b) the multi-tiered services, supports, strategies, or interventions for students who are academically struggling and/or exhibiting behavioral challenges.

   This occurs by teachers in the classroom, and (as needed) in small groups or with individual students by specialized staff or multi-disciplinary service providers. These processes are led by school administrators, and coordinated by the members of a school-level Multi-Tiered Services and Supports Team.

   In the classroom, assistive supports, remediation, accommodations, and modification strategies, respectively, are available to academically struggling or behaviorally challenging students.

   At the small group and individual student levels, research-based strategic or intensive academic, and social, emotional, or behavioral interventions are available in effective schools. These may or may not be connected to 504 or Individualized Education Plans.

   When interventions (or the expertise to implement them) are not available, effective schools utilize outside district, community-based, or other (e.g., virtual) off-site consultants.

   In the physical, occupational, speech and language, social, emotional, or behavioral areas, interventions may involve district professionals or private practitioners who become part of the school’s multi-tiered intervention team for specific student cases.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 11: Year-to-Year Articulation

   Effective schools have an organized, formal, and ongoing process to articulate (or transition) students, academically and behaviorally, from grade to grade and teacher to teacher at the end of the year and during other school-year transitions.

   This articulation process includes effectively transitioning strategic and intensive supports and interventions that have been developed and implemented for students not making sufficient academic and/or social, emotional, or behavioral progress. It also includes transitioning the 504 and special education, vocational, and other services that selected students are receiving. Finally, it includes transitioning students to post-graduation (educational, training, workplace, or other) settings.

_ _ _ _ _

Component 12: Parent/Community Outreach

   Effective schools have a written and systematically-implemented parent and community outreach and involvement program.

   The parent outreach program includes activities to encourage parent participation in school activities, parent involvement (at home) in their child or children’s education, and to help parents understand the school’s goals, objectives, programs, and desired student outcomes.

   The community outreach program includes collaboration with social service, mental health, law enforcement, and other relevant agencies, encouraging their direct and indirect support of and participation in relevant school and schooling goals, objectives, and activities.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Whether you are in a high-functioning district, school, or educational agency or setting that wants to extend its progress and success, or in a less effectively-functioning setting that needs to embark on a conscious and concerted improvement effort, the research-to-practice components are essentially the same—albeit with some setting-specific modifications or adaptations.

   This Blog first briefly describes the school improvement experiences of three school districts at different points in the improvement process.

   It then describes the twelve evidence-based components of effective schools needed to guide any school improvement process.

·       Component 1: Strategic Planning

·       Component 2: Shared Leadership

·       Component 3: Professional Development

·       Component 4: Data Management Systems

·       Component 5: School Climate/Behavior Management

·       Component 6: Academic/SEL Curriculum & Assessment

·       Component 7: Academic Instruction and Engagement

·       Component 8: Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

·       Component 9: Data-based Problem-Solving

·       Component 10: Academic & SEL/PBSS Interventions

·       Component 11: Year-to-Year Articulation

·       Component 12: Parent/Community Outreach

   One pervasive theme is that school improvement involves a data-based, strategic planning approach that analyzes all of the components above. In most cases, improvement is not just about motivating school leaders and staff to do “more”—especially when they do not have the expertise and/or skills needed to complete the strategic planning process.

   In the end, data-driven school improvement experts (whether inside or outside of a district, school, or agency) analyze the current status, strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and needs related to the specific policies, practices, and procedures in the twelve component areas. This should result in the design and implementation of a well-resourced and realistic action plan that is evaluated (and modified as needed) on an ongoing basis.

   The “bottom line” is the academic and social, emotional, and behavioral learning, mastery, and proficiency of all students from preschool through high school. All improvement activities should be directly or indirectly connected to these outcomes. Anything different potentially diminishes or detracts from any and all school improvement efforts.

_ _ _ _ _

   Thanks for reading this important Blog. I hope that our ideas encourage you to consider—especially at the beginning of this school year—one or more areas that you can target for improvement at the school, staff, school, and system levels. Schools only improve when we collectively make conscious, concerted, candid, consistent, and comprehensive efforts to extend our successes and address our weaknesses.

   As always, know that I am always available for a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you and your colleagues assess one or more of the twelve school improvement components above—translating the assessments into practical, day-to-day actions.

   Please feel free to reach out if you would like to take advantage—as many schools and districts have in the past—of this standing offer.

Best,

Howie

 

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

Why Schools Need to Evaluate and Validate Before They Select and Direct (Their New Federal Funds to Services and Interventions)

 

Be Cautious—What We Don’t Know about Student Mental Health and the Pandemic 

[CLICK HERE to view this Article as a Blog]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   We have known for decades that between 25 and 40 percent of all students need mental health services at some point during their school careers. What we don’t know when we initially recognize the existence of “a problem” is (a) what the problem actually is, and (b) what the right services, supports, and interventions are to ameliorate the problem.

   That is left to the science of psychology, the diagnostic skill of experts, and the clinical acumen of those providing the interventions or therapies—the latter when warranted by the intensity of the problem.

   As we remain in the midst of the pandemic, and as more students return to school on-site, there are increasing reports on students “experiencing” higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and trauma.

   Some of these reports are, quite frankly, published in the popular press and—while well-meaning—they are based mostly on some “expert’s” beliefs, projections, or fears—and not on objective data and fact.

   Some of these reports cite epidemiological information based on group data from a specific geographical area, location, and setting. Critically, even when the mental health “diagnoses” reported are accurate, the data are often skewed to the setting involved. Thus—for those of us in education, the results do not reflect what truly exists in school.

   The vast majority of the reports, relative to real students in actual schools, are non-existent.

   That is because most of the mental health practitioners in our schools (e.g., counselors, school psychologists, clinical social workers) have not yet had the time (a) to identify, differentially evaluate, and provide services to their students in need; (b) to see enough of these students to get accurate incident and trend data; and (c) to compare the data now with data from the past.

   Notably, the mental health practitioners in the schools are the best professionals to determine how many students have social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health challenges in our school. But they need to differentially evaluate which of their current student challenges (a) existed before the pandemic, (b) began during the pandemic (but are unrelated to the pandemic), or (c) began during the pandemic and are related to pandemic conditions or events.

   Thus, on an individual student-by-student basis, school-based mental health practitioners need to first evaluate and validate.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What We Don’t Know: An Example with Numbers

   The major “take-away” above is that educators and school leaders need to “evaluate and validate” their own students and their own data before they “select and direct” the implementation of social, emotional, or behavioral services, supports, strategies, and interventions for their students.

   As a case in point, this week (March 31, 2021), Education Week published an article, “Data: What We Know About Student Mental Health and the Pandemic.”

   The thesis of the article was to emphasize—causally—how the pandemic has increased students’ mental health needs across the country.

   Unfortunately, the article inappropriately (methodologically and statistically) used three sets of data to make its (faulty) points—points that educators and school leaders need (as above) to “evaluate and validate” for themselves using their own school-based mental health practitioners and their own student data.

• The beginning of the Education Week article quoted a clinical psychologist at Stanford Medical School who said, about the children being referred to her, “I’ve never had so many referrals than in the last six months. … Normally it’s two or three a month and now it’s maybe two a week.”

[This is the “testimonial” of one practitioner in a highly selective setting citing data that may not be related to the pandemic, and that cannot be generalize to schools across the country.]

_ _ _ _ _

• The middle of the article cited information from “a nationally representative survey of more than 2,000 parents and nearly 900 teenagers this fall” that concluded that the pandemic was “causing” more anxiety for the students than “keeping up on their academics or getting ready for college.”

[This is an example of how survey data—which measures students’ perceptions and not necessarily their objectively-determined realities—are used to draw (questionable) conclusions. This passage also assumes (without validation) that the pandemic is “causing” student anxiety, and it does not discuss how many students need mental health support for their anxiety.]

_ _ _ _ _

• Finally, the Education Week article presented results from a “new nationally representative EdWeek Research Center survey (completed between January 29 to February 11, 2021 that) asked both educators and students in grades 9 through 12 to talk about the mental health challenges they’ve faced and supports they’ve received during the pandemic.”

The survey results noted that a majority of the students reported experiencing more problems now than in January, 2020—with higher rates reported by Black, Latinx, low-income, and LGBTQ students.

[While this survey at least involved students and school-related issues, there were no data in the published Report that objectively validated that this was indeed a “nationally representative sample of students.”

Moreover, the survey (once again) involved students’ self-perceptions, and no data reflected the clinical severity, intensity, or duration of the “problems experienced” by the students.

Indeed, for the record, here were the “problems” cited:

Not finishing schoolwork because of procrastination

Feeling very happy and very sad during parts of the school day

Feeling too sad/down to focus on class

Problems concentrating or remembering things for school

Distracted by anxieties, worries, fears during class

Feeling tired during class

Skipping or showing up late for class

Feeling isolated from classmates

Not participating/speaking in class

Getting low grades or incompletes

In the end, none of the survey results are surprising, but they are not helpful to individual districts or schools that may need to provide strategic services or interventions to specific students in need.]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

New Federal Funding: Selecting and Directing American Rescue Plan Funds to New Interventions

   Relative to students’ current academic and social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs—new federal funds are now available through the recently-passed American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021.

   Here is the funding available (some overlaps may exist) from the ARP:

• The ARP includes a total of $169.5 billion in funding for education, with $129.6 billion for K-12 education and $39.6 billion for higher education.

Specifically, for K-12 education, the ARP provides $122 billion for new Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund awards to State Education Agencies (SEAs), which must allocate 90% of their funding to local educational agencies (LEAs). LEAs must use at least 20% of their funding to address learning time loss for students. They can use the remaining 80% for other activities that address needs arising from the pandemic.

• The ARP also provides more than $3 billion for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) state formula grants, another $2.75 billion in Emergency Assistance for Non-Public Schools, $850 million for the nation’s Outlying Areas, $800 million to meet the pandemic-related needs of homeless children and youth, and $190 million for Tribal Education Agencies, Alaska Native Education, and Native Hawaiian Education.

• Finally, the ARP includes just under $4 billion in emergency funding for substance use and mental health programs, including:

• $1.5 billion for block grants for prevention and treatment of substance use;
• $1.5 billion for block grants for community mental health services;
• $420 million for expansion grants for certified community behavioral health clinics;
• $100 million for behavioral health workforce education and training;
• $80 million for mental health and substance use disorder training for health care professionals, paraprofessionals, and public safety officers;
• $80 million for pediatric mental health care access;
• $50 million for community based funding for local behavioral health needs;
• $40 million for grants for health care providers to promote mental health among their health professional workforce;
• $30 million for Project AWARE;
• $30 million for community based funding for local substance use disorder services;
• $20 million for education and awareness campaign encouraging healthy work conditions and use of mental health and substance use disorder services by health care professionals;
• $20 million for youth suicide prevention; and
• $10 million for the national child traumatic stress network.

_ _ _ _ _

   With these new funds available, districts and schools have some important decisions to make on behalf of their students.

   In the section above, we emphasized the importance of having your mental health experts evaluate your students’ social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs so that the most strategic and needed services and interventions can be targeted for these new federal funds.

   In our last Blog, we also encouraged you to critically and objectively analyze the research, outcomes, and efficacy—for your schools, staff, and students—of the frameworks and programs that will be “pitched” to you in the coming weeks.

[CLICK HERE for: 

"A Consumer Alert: Student Awareness Does Not Usually Change Student Behavior--Do We Need to Dig a Moat Around CASEL's Approach to Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)?"

   To assist with this critical analysis, we have integrated over 25 of our past Blogs into a new Monograph:

[CLICK HERE]

Trauma, Stress, Mindfulness, & SEL: Why Schools Need to Validate the Science Before Selecting their Solutions for Students’ Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Needs

   This Monograph is organized in five sections:

• Differentiating Between Stress and Trauma, and Problems with Trauma-Informed Programs
  

• Understanding Students’ Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Challenges, and Implementing Effective Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports

• The History and Hype of Social-Emotional Learning

• Teaching Students Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Self-Management from Preschool through High School

• Being Mindful of Mindfulness

and it critiques the framework and efficacy of social-emotional learning practices and programs, while detailing the questionable research and troubling track records of trauma-sensitive or trauma-informed school programs, mindfulness interventions, and the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework.

   For example, recent research reviewing over 7,000 school-related studies over the past decade has found that there are no Trauma-Informed School Programs that have been effectively evaluated such that they can state—with any level of evidence-based certainty—that they can demonstrate any positive impact on preventing or addressing student trauma.

   Moreover, the PBIS framework has a long, near-25 year old history of “glorifying” the number of schools that are “implementing” different strategies from its menu, even as most schools only implement at the Tier 1 Prevention level and do not sustain their strategies with fidelity for more than three years.

   This has left millions of school educators frustrated with the wasted time, money, and effort invested in PBIS, and millions of students with significant social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs untouched, unaffected, or worse off.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Where Schools Need to Start: The Foundation for all Interventions

   Despite its weaknesses, the Education Week article described earlier in this Blog does make two important points:

• School and district staff do need to help students learn to cope with conditions related to the pandemic so that they can successfully focus on their school responsibilities and interactions.

• We won’t know the full impact of the pandemic for many years, so schools need be prepared to address students’ ongoing and changing academic and social, emotional, and behavioral needs for the long haul.

   To begin this process, we remind our colleagues of the benefits of the following strategies:

•  Listen to students with your full attention.

Students need to feel that they are the “most important” thing in your life when you are interacting with them. If you are not modeling listening with your full attention, then you really cannot expect them to learn or demonstrate the same courtesy with you and others.

_ _ _ _ _

• Acknowledge and label students’ feelings, while teaching and reinforcing their emotional control skills.

Help students to recognize how emotions link to interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional coping skills.

Students are always learning about different emotions and how to handle them. At the elementary level, we teach the student how to recognize different emotions, how they feel—physiologically—under different emotional conditions, and how to control mild to moderate emotional situations. At the secondary level, the focus is on teaching students how to control more extreme emotional situations, and how to analyze and solve their own social and interpersonal problems.

_ _ _ _ _

• Talk with your students using a problem-solving approach, and teach and model effective problem-solving in different situations.

When talking with students during actual or potential conflict situations, teachers can strategically model the language and process that we use in our Stop & Think Social Skills process:

“Let’s Stop and Think about this together. We need to make a good choice and think about what is happening here, and what we want to happen next. What choices or steps do we have or need to resolve this situation? Let’s get ready to follow these steps, and. . . just do it! How did it go. . . Can we reinforce ourselves for a good job?”

_ _ _ _ _

• Talk with students using an appropriate volume, tone of voice, and level of respect—even under “emotional” conditions.

Remember, even when students are not demonstrating appropriate behavior, you need to model your own social, emotional, and behavioral control. For example, if you are irritated with your students and talk with them in an excessively angry, critical, demeaning, or loud voice, your students might react negatively to the emotionality or disrespect in your voice, refuse to listen to you (now and in the future), and “write you off” as someone who “talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.”

Even though it is challenging, it is important to maintain an appropriate volume, tone of voice, and level of respect when talking and interacting with students in all situations. If you “blow” it, step back, let the air clear, and come back later to discuss the situation with your students and even (gasp!) apologize if your behavior was inappropriate.

_ _ _ _ _

• Give students time to process their feelings, thoughts, issues, and responses. In other words, when needed, be patient, don’t talk too much, and give your students a chance to work things out on their own.

When students approach you with a problem, give them the time, place, structure, and guidance to process it on their own. Indeed, once you have taught students the problem-solving process, every problem-solving opportunity become a “teachable moment” where students learn how to apply the original instruction.

While you may need to provide more help—from a skill perspective—to younger students during these teachable moments, you may also need to provide more help—on an emotional level—to older students who are sometimes confronted by some highly emotional situations and dilemmas.

_ _ _ _ _

• Remember to reinforce your students for Good Choices, while teaching and prompting them to self-management and self-reinforce themselves.

From kindergarten through middle school and high school, students increase their self-awareness, and learn how to depend on themselves as they plan, implement, monitor, evaluate, correct, and reinforce their own emotions, thoughts, and behavior. All of these processes increase students’ self-confidence, self-management, as well as their self-accountability. Self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement are particularly important parts of students’ developing self-management skill sets, because students are often too dependent on what others’ think about, believe, or respond to in different situations.

_ _ _ _ _

• Finally, give students hope.

Students need encouragement for their growth, progress, and effort—even if they are not always “perfect.” Help them expect and belief that they can improve and succeed over time. Give them opportunities to see different situations in different ways. Critically: give them a chance to see themselves as positive, productive, valued, and valuable individuals.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   While we know a lot about students’ social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs, we are learning more given the unique circumstances of the pandemic.

   And while it is important to anticipate that more students will need more services, supports, and—potentially—interventions, we need to approach this process in clinically valid, strategic, and efficacious ways.

   And thus, we want to emphasize the primary message of this Blog:

   Educators and school leaders need to “evaluate and validate” their own students and their own data before they “select and direct” the implementation of social, emotional, or behavioral services, supports, strategies, and interventions for their students.

   With the new funding from the American Rescue Plan Act, we need to be sure that proven practices based on sound science are chosen to support students in our schools.

   In the rush to help our students, let’s not fall prey to the “old” stories (some from our federal and state departments of education) of programs and frameworks “that work”. . . or the “new” stories of “innovation” and “technological advances” that simply will not result in demonstrable and sustained student outcomes.

   In the midst of the tragedies and losses, frustrations and roadblocks of the pandemic, we have an opportunity to have real impact. Let’s do our homework so that we can make the critical decisions to “seize the moment and win the day.”

_ _ _ _ _

   We hope that this information has been useful to you, and that it will help you plan your next steps so that we can help and support our students both in the next phases of the pandemic and thereafter.

   If there is anything that I can do to guide you through this process, please feel free to contact me with your questions, or to set up a free, one-hour consultation with me and your team.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to view this Article as a Blog]