Sunday, May 15, 2016

Student Engagement (Down), Teacher Job Satisfaction (Down), School Safety and Academic Expectations (Down)


Helping to Raise our Students and Schools Up

Dear Colleague,

   In today’s message, I am actually going to start with the “punch lines” and work backwards.

   In working backwards, I am going to weave together three recent policy and practice reports on different facets of effective schools, staff, and students:

   1. The results of the 2015-2016 Gallup Poll (reported on January 6, 2016) of nearly one million U.S. students that found that approximately 50% of adolescents feel engaged in school, 20% are actively disengaged, and 10% are both disengaged and discouraged.

   2. A Winter 2015-2016 survey by the Center on Education Policy (CEP; published this month- - May, 2016) of over 3,300 nationally-representative teachers that reported that, while the majority of teachers like their school and are part of a satisfied group of colleagues, about 50% of them also report diminished enthusiasm, high stress, and a willingness to leave the profession if they could get a higher-paying job.

   3. A study involving over 31,000 surveys from teachers in 278 New York City middle schools between 2008 and 2012 (reported by the Research Alliance for NYC Schools at New York University on March 24, 2016) that found that school climate and safety, and high academic expectations were linked to an extra 6 weeks of math instruction and, in some cases, a 25% reduction in teacher turn-over.
_ _ _ _ _

   The “Punch Line” is this:  Staff cohesion, school discipline and safety, positive classroom climates and management, and student engagement and self-management are critical factors not just to student achievement, but to staff satisfaction and retention.

   At the end of this message, I will discuss how we can turn all of the negatives around- - identifying what factors and outcomes schools need to focus on. . . so that students are engaged and achieving, staff are satisfied and involved, and schools are safe and successful.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Student Engagement and Encouragement

   On January 6, 2016, the Gallup organization released Engaged Today- - Ready for Tomorrow, the results of its Fall 2015 on-line survey of nearly one million U.S. students.  The survey asked fifth through 12th graders twenty-four questions in the areas of student engagement, hope, entrepreneurial aspiration, and career/financial literacy.

   [CLICK HERE to Link to this Study] 

     On a 5-point scale from 1-Strongly Disagree to 5-Strongly Agree, the following percentages of students answered "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" versus "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" in the Engagement questions below:

   * At this school, I get to do what I do best every day.  [Average 3.57; 55% Agree/Strongly Agree; 16% Disagree to Strongly Disagree]

   * My teachers make me feel my schoolwork is important.  [Average 4.04; 73% Agree/Strongly Agree; 9% Disagree to Strongly Disagree]

   * I feel safe in this school.  [Average 3.93; 70% Agree/Strongly Agree; 13% Disagree to Strongly Disagree]

   * I have fun at school.  [Average 3.50; 45% Agree/Strongly Agree; 22% Disagree to Strongly Disagree]

   * I have a best friend at school.  [Average 4.38; 83% Agree/Strongly Agree; 10% Disagree to Strongly Disagree]

   * In the last seven days, someone has told me I have done good work at school.  [Average 3.65; 62% Agree/Strongly Agree; 23% Disagree to Strongly Disagree]

   * In the last seven days, I have learned something interesting at school.  [Average 3.92; 70% Agree/Strongly Agree; 13% Disagree to Strongly Disagree]

   * The adults at my school care about me.  [Average 3.85; 66% Agree/Strongly Agree; 14% Disagree to Strongly Disagree]

   * I have at least one teacher who makes me excited about the future.  [Average 4.13; 76% Agree/Strongly Agree; 13% Disagree to Strongly Disagree]

   Critically, between 10 and 15% of the students surveyed above consistently rated themselves at the lowest two levels of the five-point scale.  This represents more than 100,000 student of those completing the survey.

   Even more significantly, the total means for all of the Engagement questions combined systematically decreased from a high of 4.30 in Grade 5 to a low of 3.59 in Grade 11 (with a small "bump" up to 3.62 for Grade 12).

   This suggests that students get progressively less engaged and feel less supported by their teachers as they get older in school.

   Finally, only 48% of the student ratings fell in the "Hopeful about the future" range- - with 34% of the students considered "Stuck," and 18% considered "Discouraged."

   All of this suggests that schools, staff, and students need to talk about why our classrooms, curricula, and instruction are not "connecting" in meaningful and motivating ways; and how we can increase engagement, support, and encouragement across all students and all staff.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Staff Satisfaction and Self-Determination

   This month, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) published a report, Listen to Us: Teacher Views and Voices, revealing the results of a national survey of over 3,300 kindergarten through Grade 12 teachers conducted during the Winter of 2015 to 2016. 

   [CLICK HERE to Link to this Study]
  
   Covering a wide range of topics, the most important findings  - - according to the Report- - included the following:

   * 82% of the nation’s teachers said that making a difference in students’ lives (82%) and seeing students succeed academically (69%) are among the most rewarding aspects of teaching.

   * 46% of teachers cited state or district policies that get in the way of teaching as a major challenge, and about 33% cited constantly changing demands placed on teachers and students.

   * Large majorities of teachers believe that their voices are not often factored into the decision-making process at the district (76%), state (94%), or national (94%) levels. In contrast, 53% of teachers agreed that their opinions are considered most of the time at the school level.

   * Nearly all public school teachers (94%) engage in collaborative activities with other teachers in their school. Most of their collaboration is with other teachers in the same subject and/or grade level. Nearly all of the collaborating teachers (90%) believe this collaboration was somewhat or greatly helpful and a good use of their time.

   * 96% report taking on leadership or student support activities in addition to their regular classroom roles, but many are not paid for these extra tasks (67% take on multiple extra leadership roles or activities).

   * About 50% of math and ELA teachers are unsure if their state will keep their current math and ELA standards and assessments. Among these teachers, 80% said this lack of certainty presents at least somewhat of a challenge to their efforts to teach the standards.

   * An estimated 37% of teachers said that they spend one week or less during the school year preparing students for district-mandated tests, while about 26% reported spending more than a month on these activities.

   * For state-mandated tests, 30% of teachers estimated spending less than a week to test-prep, with 29% spending more than a month. A greater share of teachers in high- and medium-poverty schools than in low-poverty schools reported spending more than a month on test-prep activities for district and state tests.

   * 81% of teachers believe students spend too much time taking district- and/or state-mandated tests.

   * 31% of teachers would eliminate state-mandated tests, 60% preferred to reduce their frequency or length, and only 7% would keep them as they are.

   * 89% of the teachers who were formally evaluated during the 2014-15 school year received written or oral feedback.  About 49% said the feedback was somewhat or very helpful in improving their instruction, while 51% said it was minimally or not at all helpful. More elementary school than high school teachers found the feedback to be somewhat or very helpful.

   * 60% or more of teachers said they like their school and are part of “a satisfied group” of teachers. And yet, 60% of teachers said their enthusiasm for teaching has lessened; 49% agreed that the stress and disappointments at their school “aren’t really worth it”; and 49% said they would leave teaching soon if they could get a higher paying job.
_ _ _ _ _

   Without trying to causally stitch these results together, a brief summary might suggest:

   1. Teachers across the country are dedicated to their students and their academic achievement, to their colleagues and collaborating with them, and to their schools- - including through out-of-class leadership activities.

   2. Teachers, especially in high-poverty schools, spend a lot of time on state (and district) test preparation, believe that students are spending too much time taking tests, and would just as soon eliminate the state tests.

   3. Teachers (and their administrators) spend considerable time going through formal evaluations that include observations and verbal/written feedback, and that contribute to salary, tenure, assignment, and dismissal decisions.  Half of the teachers found the feedback minimally or not helpful in improving instruction. 

   (Thus, it appears that there is a questionable “return on investment” here. . . especially given all of the hours that administrators are now devoting to teacher evaluation and having staff write professional development plans.)

   4. Only half of the teachers feel that their input is impacting school-level processes, and significantly fewer believe that their voices are impacting district, state, or national decisions.

   5. Despite their student focus and school efforts, teachers feel disregarded, are becoming discouraged and dissatisfied, and their commitment to staying in the profession is waning.

   (With the pool of well-trained teachers already decreasing, this is not welcome news.)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

School Climate, Expectations, and Achievement

   This past March, the Research Alliance for NYC Schools at New York University published Schools as Organizations: Examining School Climate, Teacher Turnover, and Student Achievement in NYC.  This study involved over 31,000 surveys from teachers in 278 New York City middle schools between 2008 and 2012 in the areas of:

   * Leadership and Professional Development: Teachers’ perceptions of the quality of school leadership, feedback they receive, and professional development opportunities.

   * High Academic Expectations for Students: Which captures the extent to which schools set high expectations for all students, have clear measures of student progress, help students develop challenging learning goals, and support students toward achieving these goals.

   * Teacher Relationships and Collaboration: Which captures the extent to which teachers feel supported by their colleagues, work together to improve their instructional practice, and trust and respect one another.

   * School Safety and Order: Teachers’ perceptions of crime, violence, threatening or bullying behavior, and disrespect toward adults; whether order and discipline are maintained; and whether teachers feel safe at their school.
_ _ _ _ _

   In many ways, this study overlapped significantly with the two studies described briefly above.  Moreover, its focus on middle schools is especially important given the Gallup poll results noting the decrease in student engagement over time. 

   Indeed, if we can find ways to stop this “slide” in middle schools, perhaps we can keep more high school students engaged, learning, graduating, and needing less remediation (both in the workplace and in college after graduation).

   [CLICK HERE to Link to this Study]

   Overall, the study reported the following findings:

   * All four of the areas above were independently linked to decreases in teacher turnover.

   * Indeed, if a school improved from the 50th percentile across the study’s four measures of school climate (leadership, expectations, relationships, and safety) to the 84th percentile, teacher turnover would decline by 25 percent.

   * High academic expectations and school safety were directly connected to better scores on state math exams.

   * If a school improved from the 50th percentile in school safety and high academic expectations to the 84th percentile, math scores would improve by an extra month and a half of instruction.

   * Improvements in school climate also boosted language arts scores on state tests, but those gains weren’t statistically significant.
_ _ _ _ _

   The Report cited the following policy-related recommendations:

“Our analyses show that when schools strengthen the organizational contexts in which teachers work, teachers are more likely to remain in these schools, and student achievement on standardized tests increases at a faster rate.  These findings, combined with other recent evidence, suggest that closing achievement gaps and turning around chronically under-performing schools will demand both individual and organizational solutions. 

To complement the education sector’s focus on individual teacher effectiveness, there should be a commensurate body of research and policy reform aimed at measuring and strengthening school climate. Similarly, school and district leaders should have reliable data about the strengths and weaknesses of both individual teachers and schools as whole organizations, to inform systematic efforts to improve student performance.”


   Significantly, as the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act will require that districts and schools measure and track a non-academic indicator of improvement, perhaps this study suggests that the biggest improvement “pay-off” will be a focus on enhancing positive school climate.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

How to Enhance Staff Cohesion and Positive School Climate and Safety

   As noted at the beginning of this Blog, the collective Take-Away from these three studies is this: 

Staff cohesion, school discipline and safety, positive classroom climate and management, and student engagement and self-management are critical factors not just to student achievement, but to staff satisfaction and retention.

   Critically, over the past 30 years, my work has identified the essential research-to-practice factors at the core of these important components.

   Staff Cohesion:  In order for schools to be successful, the staff interactions across a school (and district) need to be collaborative, trusting, mission-driven, and based on a shared commitment to the students, the school, the community, and each other. 

   The Scale of Staff Interactions and School Cohesion (Knoff, 2007; SSISC) is a 25-item survey that measures these areas by asking the staff in a school to “Rate these items based on the last two months of interactions across the staff in your school (or the last two months of the last school year, if it is now the beginning of a new school year).”  Each item is rated along a five-point scale from 1-Excellent to 5-Poor, and the data can be pooled and analyzed (a) for the entire staff, (b) by different grade or instructional levels of staff, (c) by instructional versus administrative versus support staff, or (d) in some other functional way. 

   When staff complete and receive the results from this tool, they have an assessment of the collective perceptions of the quality of the interactions and cohesion across their school.  This feedback may initiate discussions and a greater understanding as to how these interactions affect grade level, committee, and school culture, climate, and success; and what needs to be done to improve and strengthen positive and prosocial staff-to-staff, staff-to-student, and student-to-student interactions.

   The SSISC has three statistically-generated factors: 

   Factor 1: Staff Understanding of the School’s Mission and Expectations evaluates staff perceptions of their colleagues’ understanding of the school’s mission, and how the mission impacts instruction and instructional outcomes. 

   Factor 2: Staff Collaboration and Cohesion evaluates staff perceptions of their colleagues’ interpersonal and interprofessional collaboration, and their commitment to professional growth, shared leadership, and staff cohesion. 

   Factor 3: Effective Staff Practices and Interactions evaluates staff perceptions of their colleagues’ focus on shared organizational goals, their commitment to contributing to and supporting others in meeting these goals, and their use of problem solving to identify new or needed changes when things are not going well.

   After the SSISC is administered, scored, and analyzed, feedback is given in a way that best facilitates the staff’s understanding of the results, and the planning and intervention processes that need to follow.  This feedback might occur initially with the school’s leadership team, then in small grade- or instruction-level teams, and then at a full faculty meeting.  

   Or, the feedback might occur initially at a faculty meeting, allowing staff (a) to decide what needs to be done (if anything) to further validate or clarify the results; and then (b) to develop plans to sustain the strengths and address the concerns.

   The point is that the completion and analysis of the SSISC is the beginning of the journey.  The staff need to decide what the results mean, and then they need to identify (a) staff cohesion strengths (so they can work to maintain them); and (b) staff cohesion weaknesses (so they can systematically plan to change them).
_ _ _ _ _

   Effective School Discipline and Safety:  In order for schools to be successful, they also need to have positive and safe school and classroom settings, teachers who integrate effective classroom management approaches with strong student relationships, and students who have good social, emotional, and behavioral self-management skills.

   The Scale of Effective School Discipline and Safety (Knoff, 2007; SESDS) is a 58-item survey that measures a number of the research- and practice-based positive behavior support processes.  To complete the SESDS, school staff are asked to “Rate the discipline and behavior management statements below on your level of agreement based on your general and specific experiences at your school within the past two months (or based on last year if this questionnaire is being completed prior to the beginning of the school year).” 

   Like the SSISC above, each item is rated along a five-point scale, the data are pooled and can be analyzed across different school cohorts, and the results reflect the perceptions of the staff.

   The SESDS has five statistically-generated factors: 

   Factor 1:  Teachers’ Effective Classroom Management Skills evaluates staff perceptions of their colleagues’ social, emotional, and behavioral expectations of students.  Focused largely in the classroom, items assess to what degree teachers consistently teach the behaviors representing their expectations; how they provide incentives, consequences, and feedback for appropriate versus inappropriate student behavior; and whether they treat students with respect and accept the responsibility to support all students. 

   Factor 2:  Students’ Positive Behavioral Interactions and Respect evaluates staff perceptions of their students’ social, emotional, and behavioral skills and interactions with staff and peers in both academic and social situations, as well as their students’ enthusiasm, engagement, and cooperation during learning opportunities. 

   Factor 3:  Holding Students Accountable for their Behavior- - Administration and Staff evaluates staff perceptions of how well their administrators and colleagues hold students accountable for appropriate behavior, how consistently school rules are encouraged and enforced, and whether there is positive school spirit and low numbers of office discipline referrals.

   Factor 4:  Teachers’ Contribution to a Positive School Climate evaluates staff perceptions of whether their colleagues contribute to a positive school climate due to their satisfaction, involvement, cohesiveness, and productivity.

   Factor 5:  School Safety and Security- - Staff, Students, and School Grounds evaluates staff perceptions of how safe and secure the school is during and after school, and whether students and staff work together to keep the school clean and attractive.

   Once again- - like the SSISC- - this scale, and its specific items, identify the research-based characteristics that schools need to maintain in order to be successful in these critical areas.  Once completed, analyzed, presented, and discussed, schools can integrate these areas into the School Improvement Plan so that they are focused and prepared to bring their school “to the next level of excellence” relative to staff cohesion and school discipline and safety.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   By themselves:

   * Student Engagement, Encouragement, and Empowerment

   * Teacher Satisfaction, Self-Determination, and Stability

   * School Safety, Classroom Climate, and Academic Expectations

are important factors that need to be part of every school’s strategic and staff development plan.

   But, as discussed in this Blog- - by overlapping the three reports reviewed, these factors are interdependent, and the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
_ _ _ _ _

   While some may say, “Why are you focusing on this area at the end of the school year- - just as we are ready to go on summer break?”

   The answer is that this is the perfect time for this focus. 

   Every school in this country- - if it wanted to- - could have its staff complete the SSISC and the SESDS (or similar surveys incorporating these areas and factors) before the end of THIS school year.  In doing this, they would get an excellent snapshot of how the school year has gone in these areas. 

   This, then, would prepare these school to take the survey results, have a staff discussion at the beginning of the school year (when everyone is refreshed and renewed), and turn the survey results into action steps that are written into their School Improvement Plans.

   As most schools do not complete their annual School Improvement Plans until the Fall, this would maximize the investment in conducting these surveys.

   While I know that everyone is currently “packing up” in preparation for the last day of school, know that the most reliable and valid data evaluating the accomplishments of the current school year is the data that you collect now. 

   Remember:

“The beginning of the new school year begins now.”
_ _ _ _ _

   Indeed, as we move into the last weeks of the school year, know that I appreciate everything that you do as educational leaders- - whether in your classroom, across your school, in your office, across your community, or in your home.  I appreciate your care, your leadership, and your advocacy for your students- - especially those in need. 

   I look forward to your thoughts and comments.  Feel free to contact me at any time.  Let me know how I can help your school, district, regional cooperative, or state identify your accomplishments from this past year, so that you can “tag-team” them into the effective plans and activities needed to bring you to “the next level of excellence” next year.

   Feel free to forward this Blog link to your colleagues.

Best,

Howie

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Parents and Students in Jail: How are Schools Helping?



How do Schools Support Students with Parents in Jail and Students who, Themselves, are Incarcerated?

Dear Colleague,

   Prison. . .Jail. . .Juvenile Correction. . . Detention Facilities. . . Schools.

   There has been a great deal of (appropriate) attention- - over the past few years- - on severing the “school-to-prison pipeline.” However, schools need to similarly pay attention to the concurrent reality (and impact) of students who have parents in jail, and students who, themselves, are either in juvenile correction facilities or even adult jails.

   Two weeks ago (April 18, 2016), a KIDS COUNT Policy Report, A Shared Sentence:  The Devastating Toll of Parental Incarceration on Kids, Families, and Communities was released by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

   [CLICK HERE for Report]
 
   The Report documents that in 2011-2012 (the year with the most-recent statistics), there were over 5.1 million children in the United States who had an incarcerated parent at some point in their lives- - 7% of the total child population.

   This includes 503,000 children in California, 477,000 children in Texas, 312,000 children in Florida, and 61,000 children in my own state of Arkansas.  Percentage-wise, 13% of the children in Kentucky have had a parent incarcerated- - the highest in the nation.

   According to the Report, children with an incarcerated parent:

   * Are typically younger than 10 (More than 15% of children with parents in federal prison, and 20% with parents in state prison are 4 years old or younger)

   * Often live in low-income families of color (Compared with white peers, African-American and Latino children are over 7 and 2 times more likely, respectively, to have an incarcerated parent.  Moreover, they typically live with a young single mother with limited education.)

   * Are more likely to live with grandparents, family friends, or in foster care when their mother is incarcerated
_ _ _ _ _

   But, there’s more. . . in fact, another 60,000 more.

   According to another report issued just six months ago from The Council of State Governments Justice Center (November 5, 2015), Locked Out: Improving Educational and Vocational Outcomes for Incarcerated Youth, there are more than 60,000 youth who are incarcerated on any day in the United States.

   [CLICK HERE for Report]
  
   These 60,000 incarcerated youth include:  36,000 who are in state, court-ordered juvenile corrections facilities or centers (typically for 3 to 12 months); 18,000 who are in locally-run detention facilities (typically for less than 2 months as they wait for court adjudication); and 6,000 who are incarcerated in adult prisons or jails.

   Critically: 

   * Two-thirds of these are youth of color.

   * Most of them are older than their assigned grade level in school (usually because they haven’t earned enough credits to advance), or have already dropped out of school.

   * Many of them are functioning several grade levels below their peers in reading, math, and language arts; and 60% of them have repeated a grade.

   * One-third of them are or should be receiving special education services.

   * The majority have been suspended multiple times and/or expelled from their local schools.

   * Many have pre-existing mental health concerns.  In fact, some reports suggest that two-thirds of incarcerated youth could meet the criteria for a mental disorder- - with one-third needing ongoing clinical care. 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Psychoeducational Impact of Jail

   There are clear psychological and educational effects when a student has a parent in jail, or is incarcerated him or herself. 

   The former students have little or no control over their home/family situations, and the adjustment to or the emotionality around the home/family situation often impacts their attendance, academic engagement, motivation, and performance.  Significantly, students with incarcerated mothers have an increased risk of dropping out of school.

   Without condoning the behaviors that resulted in their incarceration, the latter students also emotionally react to their incarceration, and these reactions may similarly affect their behavior and performance in whatever schooling their jail, center, or program facility provides.
_ _ _ _ _

   More specifically, the Casey Report notes that “having a parent incarcerated is a stressful, traumatic experience of the same magnitude as abuse, domestic violence, and divorce, with a potentially lasting negative impact on a child’s well-being.”  These situations increase the probability of physical and mental health issues.  This includes increases in depression, anxiety, withdrawal, and anger. 

   But additionally, a 2006 report from the Justice Policy Institute- - The Dangers of Detention:  The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities- - cites research indicating that such detentions make mentally ill youth worse, while increasing the potential for higher levels of depression, self-harm, and suicide.

   [CLICK HERE for Report]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Needed Services and Supports

   Clearly, students need multi-faceted individual and family-based services and supports (a) when they have a parent who is incarcerated, (b) when they themselves are incarcerated, and (c) when they are about to return and as/after they return to school from an incarceration. 

   While other agencies and organizations (e.g., social services, the courts and law enforcement/parole, community mental health) need to braid their services and supports, the schools must be involved partners in the planning and implementation process.  This is especially important when students are returning from an incarceration. 

   And yet, given that some of these returning students have significant past histories of suspensions and expulsions, it is easy for schools to simply refuse their re-entry.  While this may be illegal in some situations (e.g., for students with disabilities), it is important that administrators (and their student support teams) consider re-entry decisions and programming from a psychoeducational, and even rehabilitative, perspective.

   Indeed, some students are incarcerated because they made one horrible decision- - sometimes unpredictably and “out of the blue.”  Some students have a checkered past, but have learned from their experiences during incarceration.  Other students may still be at-risk for additional offenses. . . and so, we need to educationally program for those risks accordingly.

   This is not to turn schools into parole boards.  But it is to recognize that schools are educational institutions, that adolescents make (sometimes serious) mistakes, and that the services and supports that schools (supported by other community-based agencies) provide to these returning students may determine their future paths as adults.

   These sentiments are echoed in the two reports referenced earlier.

   Specifically. . .  Of the three broad recommendations in the Casey Report, the first one is most relevant to schools:  Ensure children are supported while parents are incarcerated and after they return. 

   This Report’s most important suggestions in this area were:

   * Make sure that “right-to-know” policies permit communication between and among prisons, and child welfare, health, education, and employment and training agencies and programs so that all are aware of students and families in need of support.

   * Ensure that early education centers, schools, child welfare agencies, community-based health centers, and other local and faith-based organizations offer and coordinate programs and mentoring opportunities that facilitate and address affected students’ physical, social, emotional, and behavioral needs, growth, and well-being. . . on individual, group, and family levels.

   * Ensure that the agencies and support groups noted above provide targeted and continued services, supports, and needed training to children and families during parental incarcerations and immediately before and after the absent parent returns.
_ _ _ _ _

   Based on a Spring 2015 survey completed by the administrators overseeing every state’s Juvenile Correction Agency and focusing on the 36,000 incarcerated youth in state custody, the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSGJC) “Locked Out” Report identified three major findings. 

FINDING 1.  Most incarcerated youth do not have access to the same educational and vocational services as their peers in the community, and they do not attend schools that have the same rigorous curriculum and student performance standards as traditional public schools.

Recommendations

1.1 Require all facility schools to provide incarcerated youth with access to the same educational and vocational services that are available in the community.

1.2 Hold all facility schools accountable for student performance and meeting college- and career-readiness standards that are aligned with state requirements for traditional public schools.

1.3 Require all facility schools to receive nationally-recognized accreditation for their education programs.
_ _ _ _ _

FINDING 2.  Most states do not collect, track, and report student outcome data for incarcerated youth in all facility schools.

Recommendations

2.1 Track data on a minimum set of key student outcome indicators for incarcerated youth (i.e., high school credit accumulation, math and reading proficiency, attendance, school discipline, and high school graduation), and develop the infrastructure needed to collect and analyze these data.

2.2 Establish formal processes for reviewing student outcome data for incarcerated youth and use these data to evaluate and improve school performance
_ _ _ _ _

FINDING 3.  The policies and practices in most states make it especially challenging for youth released from incarceration to make an effective transition to community-based educational or vocational settings.

Recommendations

3.1 Designate a single agency to be responsible for ensuring youths’ successful transition to a community-based educational or vocational setting after release from incarceration.

3.2 Require juvenile justice and education agencies to track and report on a minimum set of post-release student outcomes including high school credit accumulation, math and reading proficiency, attendance, school discipline, and high school graduation or the equivalent, securing and maintaining employment, and enlistments in military service.
_ _ _ _ _

   While the CSGJC Report unfortunately did not address the mental health and social, emotional, and behavioral needs of incarcerated youth, it did a nice job of outlining the “effective practice” components needed when students transition from their juvenile justice facilities back to their home schools.

   Specifically, the Report recommended that state policymakers require that juvenile justice and education agencies engage in the following practices:

   * Juvenile justice and education agencies should work together to develop a written educational transition plan for incarcerated youth at least 30 days prior to release, and establish timelines for how and when credits and student records will be transferred.

   * At a minimum, a parent/guardian, classroom teacher, and school counselor should be involved in the development of a youth’s transition plan.

   * Youth should be re-enrolled in an educational or vocational setting prior to release from a facility, and attend the school or program immediately upon release.

   * Youth should be re-enrolled in their home school, and automatic placements in alternative education programs should be restricted.
_ _ _ _ _

   Many of these recommendations complement the five principles delineated by the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice in their December, 2014 Correctional Education Guidance Package that focused on helping states and local agencies strengthen the quality of the education services they provided to their incarcerated youth.

   [CLICK HERE for Link]

   These five principles noted the need for:

   * A facility-wide climate that promotes education and "provides the conditions for learning" through family engagement, protection from harm, effective policies, and student supports.

   * Necessary funding to support educational opportunities for all youths that are comparable to their peers "who are not system-involved."

   * Recruitment of staff with skills relevant to juvenile justice settings and valid credentials in focus areas (like limited English proficiency). Teaching staff should also have access to quality professional development and should be assessed through teacher evaluations.

   * Holding students accountable to the same outcomes as any other student by providing rigorous and relevant curricula aligned with state academic and career and technical education standards that utilize instructional methods, tools, materials and practices that promote college and career-readiness.

   * Processes and procedures that plan for students' eventual release and coordination between schools and agencies.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Recommendations are Fine. . . but Some Incarcerated Youth are Not Getting these Services

   While all of the recommended services, supports, policies, and procedures discussed above are relevant, appropriate, and important, verification and authentication also is needed. 

   This is because sometimes the “talk” does not come close to representing the “walk.”

   A Personal State-level Example:  Last year, as part of my work as the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education’s federal State Personnel Development Grant, I was asked to visit and review the educational and mental health services of a number of our state’s Division of Youth Services (DYS) Juvenile Treatment Centers.  

   After visiting three of the state’s seven centers, I shared my impressions in a report.

   My ultimate recommendation was for DYS to contract with a nationally- experienced firm to conduct a more extensive, independent audit and assessment of the state’s Juvenile Treatment Centers. 

   This recommendation was based on my concerns about the quality of educational and mental health services and support not being provided to the incarcerated youth in these centers.

   Below are the findings from my report.  You can certainly “read between the lines” here to imagine the full state of affairs in the centers that I visited.
_ _ _ _ _

Curricular and Technological Issues:  Academics and Social, Emotional, and Behavioral

    Finding #1.  Despite the best efforts of the staff, some of the textbooks/materials in the classrooms are outdated and/or do not completely conform to the Common Core State Standards. 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

    Finding #2.  In the social, emotional, and behavioral area, the DYS Education System has no formal, sequenced social skills curriculum to teach students the interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional coping skills that they need to be successful. 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Finding #3.  The DYS Education System needs to upgrade and update its technology and availability of hardware- and software-based assistive supports, and complete an updated Technology Audit. 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Teacher/Instructional Issues

    Finding #4.  The DYS Education System’s instructional staff need to know the current functional academic and social, emotional, and behavioral skill level of every student in the school as soon after their enrollment as possible. 

   Health, mental health, English second language, and disability-related issues also should be immediately determined, shared, and addressed through comprehensive services and supports. Progress monitoring assessments in all of these areas should occur on a continual basis thereafter. 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Finding #5.  An explicit behavioral standards/accountability system with specific behavioral expectations and targeted responses to inappropriate behavior is not being used in or between classrooms.  In addition, an organized, explicit, and strategically-implemented system of meaningful student incentives and rewards was not apparent during any of my visits. 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Functional Assessment and Intervention Planning Recommendations

    Finding #6.  A systematic data-based functional assessment problem-solving process is not being used anywhere in the DYS Education System:

   * To diagnostically determine why students are having academic or behavioral difficulties;

   * To identify specific services, supports, and interventions needed; and
  
   * To formatively and summatively track the impact of specific treatment approaches. 

Instead, students are being clinically labeled, and global mental health status tools are being used to track students’ general psychological functioning.
_ _ _ _ _

    Finding #7.  Intervention planning and evaluation discussions related to students’ specific treatment plans do not routinely occur among classroom teachers, support and safety/law enforcement staff, clinical/mental health staff, and residential staff.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Intervention Issues

    Finding #8.  At the prevention and effective classroom level, the DYS Education System’s classroom teachers and support staff have not received consistent levels of preparation, supervision, and feedback on a number of effective classroom and basic social, emotional, and behavioral intervention approaches.  Thus, there is not a consistent “core” or presence of these classroom management approaches available or used for all students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Finding #9.  There are not enough clinical therapists available to meet the needs of the System’s students.  In fact, there are more case workers than clinical therapists available, and the latter group is not skilled in how to implement classroom-centered strategic or intensive social, emotional, or behavioral interventions.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Finding #10.  Few, if any, students are receiving the cognitive-behavioral therapy approaches needed for the anxiety, post-traumatic stress syndrome, depression, and/or phobic conditions that they demonstrate. Treatment approaches like progressive muscle relaxation therapy, anger replacement therapy, and attribution retraining are not evident.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Issues Related to Communication and Collaboration

    Finding #11.   The students’ “home” schools or districts are not systematically kept “in the loop” relative to the status, needs, progress, and disposition of their respective students. 

   For example, the home schools or districts are not typically invited to IEP meetings- - which they could attend virtually.  Moreover, they rarely are involved in the transition planning needed when a student is preparing to return to his or her home (or transition) setting.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Finding #12.  There needs to be better, more accountable, and ongoing coordination among the administrators and supervisors across the different state agencies responsible for these students:  the Arkansas Department of Human Services (e.g., the DYS Education System and the Children’s Behavioral Health Division); the Arkansas Department of Education (e.g., the Learning Services Division- - including the alternative education, health, and special education programs; and the Teacher Accountability Division); the Arkansas Department of Career Education (e.g., the Career and Technical Education, Adult Education, and Rehabilitative Services departments); and others.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   I understand that- - for schools- - the children and students described in this message are complex, challenging, frustrating, and sometimes unresponsive to our assistance.

   At the same time, we are talking about over SEVEN PERCENT of our student population. . .

   And these are some of the students who lag in their academic achievement, demonstrate significant behavioral challenges, drop out of school, eventually need welfare support or commit crimes in our communities, and then continue a generational pattern when their at-risk children get ready to come to school.

   (I am not trying to suggest a causal pattern here. . . but the probabilities do add up.)

   With national, state, and community support and coordination, our schools must be active service providers addressing these students’ academic, social, emotional, behavioral, vocational, and other needs. 

   While our motivation to help the students whose parents are incarcerated may be more forthcoming- - because the situation is “not their fault,” we must be equally giving to the students who themselves have been incarcerated.

   As noted earlier:  I “get” that some of these returning students have significant past histories of suspensions and expulsions, and some administrators simply want to refuse their re-entry (sometimes in the “name” of protecting their other students).  At the same time, this should be a Student Support Team decision. . . a decision that is based on the student’s current psychoeducational status and needs.

   Indeed, in Part D (Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk) of the recently reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA/ESSA), it requires State Education Agencies to describe how they will:

   * Establish “procedures to ensure the timely re-enrollment of each student who has been placed in the juvenile justice system in secondary school or in a re-entry program that best meets the needs of the student, including the transfer of credits that such student earns during placement; and

   * (O)pportunities for such students to participate in credit-bearing coursework while in secondary school, postsecondary education, or career and technical education programming. . . “

   * . . . “to the extent feasible- - deliver services and interventions designed to keep such youth in school that are evidence-based. . . “
_ _ _ _ _

   When they plan and write these procedures, I hope that our state education departments will be mindful of the psychoeducational perspective that is needed, as well as to the social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs of these students (both with incarcerated parents, and who are incarcerated themselves).

   For districts and schools, I hope that you will (continue to) embrace the moral imperative (if not the unambiguous reality) that we need to provide services and supports to these students.  While I know that this requires the coordination and support of many community partners, we need to be at the table.

   Perhaps, to start, you can use the recommendations above as an informal “check-list” to evaluate the current status of your school or district.
_ _ _ _ _

   As we move into the last month(s) of the school year, know that I appreciate everything that you do for all of your students and their families.  I appreciate your care, your leadership, and your advocacy for all students in need.  And I always look forward to YOUR thoughts and comments. 

   Feel free to contact me at any time.  Let me know how I can help your state, regional cooperative, district, or school to move to the next level of excellence.

   Feel free to forward this Blog link to your colleagues.

Best,

Howie