Why Do They Keep Trying to “Validate” Restorative Practices with Lousy (or Worse) Data?

 More Proof that Schools Need to Avoid Restorative (Justice) Programs and Practices

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

Educators need to be wary when people, organizations, or agencies intent on promoting their beliefs or rationalizing their existence inaccurately or deceptively disseminate data, information, and/or Reports to “validate” their presence, power, or positions.

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   Over the years, I have clearly debunked—from both research and practice perspectives—the use of (especially packaged) Restorative (Justice/Practice) Programs in schools.

   Regardless of their implicit or explicit desire to “cure” disproportionate disciplinary referrals, actions, or suspensions for students of color, they do not work. Indeed:

·       No single Restorative (Justice/Practice) Program has ever been objectively validated using sound research methods in a school setting; and 

·       The most methodologically-sound research studies report that Restorative (Justice/Practice) Programs have actually produced negative results relative to student behavior and academic achievement, and teacher/staff morale, feelings of administrative support, and classroom management success.

   And while there is a place for more specific, individual Restorative Practices—that are not layered into an “all-knowing, all-purpose, too-good-to-be-true” packaged program—many educators do not fully understand the science-to-practice needed to make them successful.

   Specifically, Restorative Practices do not effectively change students’ inappropriate or antisocial behavior when:

·       The behaviors are intense, extreme, dangerous, or physically harmful, abusive, or destructive;

·       Students do not have the social, emotional, or behavioral skills to behave appropriately after the apology, remediation, restoration, or compensation has occurred; and/or

·       The Practices are used simplistically and in isolation with students whose inappropriate behaviors have complex and interdependent root causes that involve home, school, and/or peer or other factors.

   But the biggest problem with individual Restorative Practices is that there is no empirical research that identifies exactly which practices will successfully change what social, emotional, or behavioral student problems.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

But Reports Inaccurately Touting Restorative Programs and Practices Continue to be Published

   Despite these well-documented results and issues, popular press stories (testimonials) and published technical reports continue to—inaccurately—tout some Restorative Programs and practices.

   The biggest problems with the latter are that some of these Reports:

·       Are published by National Technical Assistance Centers or other organizations that educators believe that they can trust; 

·       Do not (fully) report their methodological flaws, and/or how they are subjectively representing their results; and/or 

·       Are published to promote a political, organizational, or personal agenda to “validate” the Center or organization’s presence, power, or positions (see the Quote headlining this Blog).

   A case in point is the July 2021 Research Brief from WestEd, “Can Restorative Practices Bridge Racial Disparities in Schools?” which was recently re-promoted in a national press release. 

   According to the Brief, “WestEd is a nonpartisan, nonprofit agency that conducts and applies research, develops evidence-based solutions, and provides services and resources in education, human development, and related fields, with the goal of improving outcomes and ensuring equity for individuals from infancy through adulthood.”

   WestEd makes millions of dollars per year through its consultation contracts. These contracts include (again) millions of dollars per year in U.S. Department of Education and other federally-funded grants.

   Indeed, WestEd currently runs at least the following taxpayer-funded National Support Networks for the U.S. Department of Education: (a) the Regional Education Laboratory-West; (b) Regional Comprehensive Centers in at least 18 states or U.S. territories; (c) The Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting; (d) the National Center for Systemic (Special Education) Improvement; (e) the Center to Improve Social and Emotional Learning and School Safety; and (f) The National Research and Development Center to Improve Education for Secondary English Learners.

   WestEd’s restorative justice work most often is affiliated with the WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center which also has some funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

_ _ _ _ _

   WestEd’s Research Brief reports the results of some sophisticated statistical analyses from 838,166 California middle and high school students who completed the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) between the 2013 to 2014 and 2018 to 2019 school years.

   Significantly, WestEd has a contract from the California Department of Education both to administer the CHKS to all students across California and to provide CHKS training and technical assistance to school districts statewide.

   Relative to the CHKS, the Brief explicitly states that,

“The CHKS includes eight questions about students’ experiences with restorative practices. We used students’ answers to these questions to create a measure, ranging from 1 to 5, that indicates how much exposure each student had to restorative practices.”

   The two results from the study were (in bold, large font, highlighted headlines):

·       Restorative Practices May Bridge Discipline Disparities and Improve Academic Achievement for All. . . Students with higher levels of exposure to restorative practices evidenced smaller Black-White discipline disparities; and 

·       Exposure to restorative practices was associated with a higher GPA for all students, Black students, and White students.

   [NOTE, above, the use of the conditional words “may bridge” and “was associated with.”]

_ _ _ _ _

   The Problem?

   Educators wanting or needing to close the discipline and achievement gap between students of color and White students, who are impressed by complex statistical analyses, and/or who trust WestEd and its association with the U.S. Department of Education, may possibly embrace and implement a Restorative Practice Program or the restorative practices cited in the Brief. . . . without reading or fully understanding the flaws and weaknesses of the study, and the deceptiveness of the headlines above.

   This—supported by a review of the current Restorative Practice studies—may result not just in a school’s waste of time, resources, commitment, and staff and student involvement, but in the negative outcomes discussed above.

   But let’s look at the facts.

   As a first step in critiquing the WestEd research, let’s listen to what the authors of the Brief said in the piece:

Limitations. It is important to note that our models are not designed to estimate “causal” effects. In other words, we cannot glean from these models whether exposure to restorative practices causes fewer suspensions or improved GPAs. Instead, we can only say that restorative practices are associated with the aforementioned positive outcomes.

 

That is, student exposure to greater levels of restorative practices tended to coincide with less discipline exposure, smaller racial discipline disparities, and better academic achievement.

 

While we controlled for a range of student, parent, and district factors, there were many factors that we did not control for because they were not available in our data.

 

Thus, based on the data available to us, while it is possible that student exposure to restorative practices does indeed abridge discipline disparities and improve academic achievement, it is also possible that unobserved student-, school-, or community-level characteristics drove both student exposure to restorative practices and student outcomes. Additional research is thus warranted to estimate the causal effect of these practices.

 

Another critical facet of this research is that we were (intentionally) not identifying the impact of restorative programming (i.e., teachers receiving professional development in restorative practices). Instead, we were attempting to evaluate restorative practices (i.e., students being exposed to teachers who actually, for example, help resolve conflicts or inculcate conflict resolution skills).

   Given this “confession” by the authors (with more to come below), there are three primary reasons why this Brief should never have been published and why it cannot be used to validate the utility of the Restorative practices “investigated.”

   [In fact—parenthetically—given my 40 years of services on six Editorial Boards for national journals in School Psychology, I can guarantee that this study would never have been published by any of these journals.]

·       Research Rejection #1: “Restorative Practices” data. This was NOT a study of Restorative practices; it was a study of what the authors subjectively decided were Restorative practices. 

As acknowledged by the authors, all they did was review the 132 and 139 questions, respectively, in current the Middle and High School California Health Kids Survey In-School Core Modules, and pull out eight questions that they decided had a relationship to “Restorative practices.”

Critically, (a) the CHKS did not include these questions because of their relationship to Restorative practices, (b) the authors never objectively validated this relationship, and (c) most educators—if presented these questions without any context or pretense—would simply say that they generically describe the characteristics of a positive and supportive school climate where students and staff get along with each other.

The eight CHKS items evaluated in the WestEd Brief are:

* This school encourages students to feel responsible for how they act.

* This school encourages students to understand how others think and feel.

* This school encourages students to care about how others feel.

* Students are taught that they can control their own behavior.

* This school helps students solve conflicts with one another.

* If I tell a teacher that someone is bullying me, the teacher will do something.

* Teachers show it is important for students of different races to get along.

* The adults in this school respect differences in students.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Research Rejection #2: Student Achievement Data. ALL of the data in this study involved student survey responses. Thus, this was a study evaluating students’ perceptions.

No objective data was collected, and none of the students’ perspectives or perceptions were validated using cumulative record, teacher, administrator, or other data.

Indeed, in a footnote in the Brief, the authors conceded,

The CHKS does not ask students to report their grade point average (GPA) directly. Instead, it asks students to indi­cate which of eight options best fits the grades they received in the last 12 months. Categories include options such as “mostly F’s” and “A’s and B’s.” We adapted these options to create a measure of estimated GPA ranging from 0 (low GPA) to 4 (high GPA).

Given this, the academic achievement results reported in the Brief need to be summarily rejected.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Research Rejection #3: Student Suspension Data. Similar to the achievement data, the authors did not analyze objective student suspension data. . . they analyzed student survey reports of suspensions that were never validated.

Indeed, in another footnote, the authors noted:

Suspension rate is captured in the CHKS data by a question that asks whether students have missed school in the past 30 days due to being suspended (0 = “no,” 1 = “yes”). This question only appeared in the 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16, and 2016/17 CHKS data.

_ _ _ _ _

   While I have no explanation for the authors’ decision to conduct, publish, and disseminate this Brief, I do know that it should be retracted immediately given its flaws, subjectivity, inaccuracy, and potential to do harm in our schools.

   And yet, I know that the needed retraction will not occur, and that unsuspecting educators (or those wanting “research” to validate their Restorative Program or practices beliefs) might use this Brief to justify beginning (or maintaining) one or more restorative initiatives.

   This clearly will not serve our schools or—especially—our students of color well.

   But unfortunately, I have some more bad news. . .

   But first, I want to make sure that this entire discussion is focused on what Educators really searching for when they read a Restorative Justice or Program headline or study.

   They want:

A field-tested and research-to-practice blueprint on how to teach and increase students’ social, emotional, and behavioral interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional control, communication, and coping skills

 

while nurturing, reinforcing, or improving teachers’ (and administrators’) student relationship, classroom management, and challenging behavior response skills and interactions

 

so that

 

disproportionate disciplinary actions for students of color (and with disabilities) are eliminated, and students’ challenging behaviors are similarly eliminated and replaced with appropriate, prosocial interactions. 

   Isn’t this the goal of virtually any Restorative Program/Practices approach?

   But—as above—isn’t it curious that some Restorative Program/Practice researchers feel the need to artificially create a restorative practice study out of eight random items on a student survey designed for a totally different purpose?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

When Restorative Program Data May Be No Data at All

   While the WestEd Brief discussed above was—purportedly—about validating the utility of Restorative practices, I want to revisit one of the most methodologically-sound investigations attempting to validate Restorative Justice Programs.

   Conducted between June 2015 and June 2017, this study involved the implementation of the International Institute for Restorative Practices’ (IIRP) SaferSanerSchools Whole-School Change restorative practices program in 22 randomly-selected elementary and middle schools in the Pittsburgh (PA) School District. The implementation schools were matched with 22 randomly-selected Pittsburgh School District schools, and the efficacy of the Restorative Practices Program was independently evaluated by the Rand Corporation.

   The SaferSanerSchools Program consisted of the following elements: Affective statements, Restorative questions, Small impromptu conferences, Proactive circles, Responsive circles, Restorative conferences, Fair process, Reintegrative management of shame, Restorative staff community, Restorative approach with families, and the Fundamental hypothesis that human beings are happiest, healthiest, and most likely to make positive changes in their behavior when those in authority do things with them rather than to them or for them.

   While the IIRP and Rand Corporation focused on the positive outcomes of the study in the latter’s 2018 report. . . and this was predictably highlighted by the popular press and those looking for these results. . . other more objective organizations noted—after reading and analyzing the report—that the results were mixed.

   Indeed, in a January 26, 2019 Blog, I identified some of the most critical negative results reported in the study, stating:

The results of the study indicated that, while the District’s suspension rates had been declining prior to the implementation of the study, the suspension rates in the Restorative Practices schools declined even more than the rates in the Control schools.

 

In addition, in the Restorative Practices schools (a) alternative school placements decreased; (b) students were less likely to be suspended multiple times; (c) disparities in suspension rates between African-American (vs. Caucasian), and low-income (vs. higher-income) students, respectively, decreased; and (d) suspension rates for female students declined.

 

However, more in-depth analyses revealed that:

 

·    While suspension rates in the Restorative Practices schools declined by 36% during the two-year study, suspension rates in the Control schools also declined 18% during the same time period.

 

·    The overall suspension results were driven by lower rates in the Restorative Practices elementary schools. 

 

·    Fewer suspensions were not found in the Restorative Practices Middle schools (Grades 6 to 8).

 

·   Fewer suspensions were not found for male students or students with disabilities.

 

·     There were no reductions in student arrests, or for incidents of violence or weapons violations.

 

·  In the Restorative Practices Middle schools, academic outcomes actually worsened when compared with the Control schools.

 

·      Survey results from staff in the Restorative Practices schools indicated that they did not think the IIRP program was affecting student behavior.  They did, however, report that their relationships with students had improved because of program involvement.

 

·  The Program was supported by outside grant funding, its implementation involved significant amounts of time, resources, and staff involvement, and there were concerns about the Program’s ability to be sustained once the funding had lapsed.

[CLICK HERE for the Blog:

“New Rand Corporation Study Finds Restorative Practices Produce Mixed and Underwhelming Results:  But Some Publications are “Spinning” the Outcomes and Twisting these Results”]

_ _ _ _ _

   So. . . beyond the mixed results, where is the “bad news”?

   Last month (January 18, 2022), the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-P) published a research report, "Student Arrests in Allegheny County Schools: The Need for Transparency and Accountability."

   Analyzing 2017-2018 school year data reported by Allegheny County’s (PA) 43 public school districts (which includes the Pittsburgh School District), ACLU-P staff examined student arrest patterns, referrals to police, juvenile justice involvement and the use of “summary citations” (tickets issued to students by police) when students were attending school. The Report also compared juvenile justice system data for Allegheny County to the data that schools provided to federal and state education departments.

[CLICK HERE for this Report]

   In general, the Report found that student arrests or referrals to police occurred more often than were documented by schools. The report also found that students in Allegheny County were more likely to be arrested at school than students elsewhere in Pennsylvania. Critically, the pattern of arrests and referrals fell disproportionately on Black students and students with disabilities.

   Relative to the first statement above, the Report specifically stated that,

Juvenile arrest data suggested that some districts in the county underreported student arrests. For example, Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) incorrectly reported zero arrests to the U.S. Department of Education for the 2017-18 school year. PPS subsequently produced non-zero arrest data for that year, but it has not corrected publicly posted data. Even the revised figures undercount the true number of student arrests. And PPS is not alone in undercounting arrests.

   NOTE: The Pittsburgh Public School data are from the school year immediately after the completion of the IIRP and Rand Corporation’s Restorative Program study.

   Mark Keierleber from the 74 Million (January 19, 2022) commented on this news as follows:

[CLICK HERE for Article]

Zero. That’s how many Pittsburgh students were arrested at school during the 2017-18 academic year, according to the most recent federal education data. Certainly that’d be something for the 20,000-student district to celebrate, but there’s just one problem.

 

It isn’t true.

 

In fact, county juvenile court data tell a completely different story — one in which police actually carried out nearly 500 arrests in Pittsburgh schools that year, disproportionately against Black students and children with disabilities, often for minor offenses. That’s a key revelation in a study released Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. . .

 

“The conversation is really about the harms to Black children” Jordan said, and while the Pittsburgh district “does not want to be seen as anti-Black or insensitive to the concerns of Black parents,” leaders have failed to adopt sufficient student interventions that don’t involve the criminal justice system, he said. . .

 

The Pittsburgh district attributed the underreporting of its data to the federal government to an error. After taking heat for racial disparities in arrests, school leaders hired a consulting group in 2020 to study arrest data and created a task force focused on improving school safety. . .

 

By underreporting campus arrests, however, districts could give parents an inaccurate picture of campus safety and the effects of school-based police on the young people who interact with them. . .

 

“The harms of having police in schools are much more widespread than districts report,” said Jordan, who called Allegheny County a “hot spot” nationally for youth arrests. During the 2018-19 school year, Pittsburgh students were arrested at nearly eight times the state rate, the ACLU found...

 

Local activists have been sounding the alarm for several years. In a 2020 report, the local Black Girls Equity Alliance found Pittsburgh school district police were the single largest source of juvenile justice referrals for Black girls, accounting for a third of all referrals countywide. Black girls in Allegheny County were referred to the juvenile justice system at a rate 10 times higher than white girls, researchers found.

 

“These really high rates of referrals of Black youth are not because there’s a problem with young people. It’s that there’s a problem with the adults who are responding to them and with the systems we have in place,” she said...

 

During the 2017-18 school year, the Pittsburgh district reported 86 arrests and 395 law enforcement referrals to the state education department. That same school year, the district reported zero arrests to the U.S. Department of Education while the county juvenile court tallied 499 school-related arrests.

 

“For a district in which the arrest rates have been high for a very long time, why should they be so inaccurate,” Jordan asked. “I can’t speak to intentionality, but they are in the position to know that what they have put out to the public is inaccurate. They are well aware of that.”

 

“The numbers speak from themselves,” Dempsey said. “There’s obviously bias in decision-making from people in power who have the ability to decide whether to either charge these individuals or not.”

_ _ _ _ _

   So what are the implications here?

   At least two implications come to mind:

·       If the ACLU-P found data glitches in the Pittsburgh School District’s 2017-2018 discipline data, how can we be sure that there were not similar errors in the IIRP/Rand Corporation’s Restorative Justice Program data from June 2015 through June 201 

Moreover, if the Restorative Justice Program data are inaccurate and if they under-reported the number of discipline events involving students of color, then how many of the “positive” program results found in the Rand Corporation report are now null and void?

_ _ _ _ _ 

·       Even if the mixed results from the Rand Corporation report stand, it would appear that any impact from the IIRP’s SaferSanerSchools Restorative Justice Program in the Pittsburgh School District virtually disappeared during the Summer of 2017... as the alarming student arrest figures can attest.

This does not speak well for the long-term impact of the SaferSanerSchools Program, the sustainability of the Program, and/or the Program’s effects on—as cited by Keierleber—the “obvious bias in decision-making from people in power who have the ability to decide whether to either charge these individuals or not.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Summary

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. You can try to change something or one's outward appearance, but it will not change the inward appearance. Even if you put lipstick on a pig, it will always roll in mud and grunt.

   One of the suggested primary themes to guide educators’ practice in their schools—relative to maximizing the academic, social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes and proficiencies of all students— is that:

We need to be guided by scientifically-proven multi-tiered PRACTICES (services, supports, strategies, and/or interventions) that are matched to the specific demographics, conditions, and circumstances of our students, staff, and schools 

and NOT by PROGRAMS that lack these characteristics, that cannot demonstrate their causal efficacy, and that cannot be sustained.

   In this context, and from the first part of this Blog, we need to be wary of over-zealous (or mis-guided) researchers who seem to make more out of some good (CHKS) survey data than the data allow.

   Moreover, from the second part of this Blog, we need to be confident that the data reported by researchers, program evaluators, and schools are consistently well-chosen, well-collected, well-analyzed, and that they are reliable and valid.

   There are no Restorative Justice Programs that have been found—in one or more well-designed, methodologically-sound longitudinal studies—to produce the results that the program developers purport or desire.

   Moreover, beyond the fact that many restorative practices are simply effective school and schooling strategies, no research is available to tell us which practices work, with what student behavior problems, in what combinations or sequences, and why.

   And yet, we are still getting reports like the two detailed in this Blog.

   And worse, we still have thousands of schools (often encouraged by their State Departments of Education) initiating Restorative Justice Programs or implementing restorative practices that will likely fail, and may actually—as in Pittsburgh—make the problems worse.

_ _ _ _ _

   As always, I appreciate those of you who read these Blogs, and I hope they are useful to you.

   If you want to read some research-to-practice solutions for the disproportionate disciplinary actions taken against students of color and with disabilities, go to our three-part Blog Series that began on July 31, 2021.

[CLICK HERE for Part I:

The Critical Common Sense Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color: This is NOT About Critical Race Theory (But We Discuss It)]

   Meanwhile, if I can help you, your colleagues, your school, your district, or those in your professional setting to address your students’ social, emotional, or behavioral challenges, send me an email and let’s set up a time to talk. This first consultation hour is on the house.

Best,

Howie

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

(Pandemic-Related?) Behavioral Challenges and Student Violence in Our Schools Today

Preparing for Action by Pursuing the Principles Needed for Assessment and Intervention

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

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction: Twittering Twitter Twits

   This past week, I posted a 46-minute free Webinar discussing the importance of teaching parents how to teach social, emotional, and behavioral skills to their children and adolescents using the Stop & Think Social Skills Parenting Program—a complement to our evidence-based (through SAMSHA, CASEL, and other groups) Stop & Think Social Skills Program for schools.

[CLICK HERE if You are Interested in Watching this Video]

   After posting an announcement of the Webinar on Twitter, I received a somewhat “twittering” tweet from a parent castigating me for suggesting that you could successfully teach parenting in 46 minutes (obviously a frustrated misinterpretation on her part).

   Such is life in today’s social media world where good intent is sometimes met with public scoldings (or worse). But, in a way, she did have a good point.

   Every time I prepare my bi-monthly Blog, I fully intend to spend 20 minutes on it, and write six to eight paragraphs.

   But then, three things happen. . . resulting in a bimonthly article (even though I still call it a “Blog”), and one to two days of preparation and writing.

   These things are:

·       I am forced (as we all should be) to recognize that the problems I often discuss with you are often terribly complex, and I do not want to over-simplify either the problems or the (sometimes) many different reasons why they are occurring; 

·       I realize that the solutions that I present are similarly complex, they typically are connected to the confirmed root causes of the problems at-hand, and there are multiple root causes to the same problem; and

·       I further recognize that these multiple root causes occur because students and their problems have their own histories, contexts, and interrelationships, and that successful intervention plans must be linked to these individual circumstances.

   And so, my Twitter parent was right. Something as complex as parenting cannot be “taught” in 46 minutes. But the science-to-practice blueprints of effective parenting can be described within that timeframe.

   And this—even after one to two days of writing—is what I to do in these Blogs.

   Specifically: Knowing (as bulleted above) that I can’t provide all of the information needed to fully address any problem at-hand, my Blogs provide evidence-based blueprints that can guide your analyses of a targeted problem—if present in your classroom, school, district, or other setting—toward greater objective understanding and field-tested, proven action.

   While I describe as many specifics as possible, very often, administrators, supervisors, program directors, and others then contact me—asking for the more personal, consultative support needed to apply information in the written Blog to their specific or unique site-based situations.

   And I love it when this happens. . . because I love to work, personally and collaboratively, with colleagues to help them to truly solve their significant, persistent, or systemic challenges.

   But at the same time, I know (because they write me) that many are using the evidence-based blueprints and field-tested recommendations in the Blogs to solve their own problems.

   And that clearly is a win-win for everyone.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Why are Behavioral Challenges and Student Violence Increasing in Schools Today ?

   Since New Year's Day, numerous professional and popular press reports have discussed the increasing number of social, emotional, and behavioral challenges exhibited by students in schools across the country. These challenges range from misbehavior to physical and antisocial threats to extreme levels of emotionality to dangerous acts of violence.

   Based its December 2021 nationally-stratified survey of 286 district leaders, 199 principals, and 725 teachers, Education Week reported that:

·       Nearly half of all school and district leaders (44%) said they are receiving more threats of violence by students now than they did in the fall of 2019. More generally, two out of three teachers, principals, and district leaders said students are misbehaving more these days than they did in the fall of 2019.

·       Educators in districts where all or some of the instruction was provided online last school year were more likely to report that student threats and misbehavior have risen since 2019.

·       In districts in which nearly all the learning was remote or hybrid in 2020-21, 51% of principals and district leaders reported rising rates of student threats of violence. That rate was 30% for school and district leaders where most of the learning was in person the previous school year.

·       In districts that were offering mostly remote or hybrid instruction last school year, 71% of survey respondents said students are misbehaving more this school year, compared with 52% from districts that had offered mostly in-person instruction the previous year.

·       66% of principals and district leaders in larger districts of 10,000 or more students reported an uptick in student threats of violence, compared with 34% of their peers in districts with enrollments under 2,500 students. Similarly, 73% of teachers, principals, and district leaders in larger districts said student misbehavior is on the rise, compared with 60% in smaller districts.

·       Compared with their counterparts in rural areas and towns, urban and suburban teachers, principals, and district leaders were also more likely to say student misbehavior is on the rise. Rising rates of student misbehavior were reported by 73% of suburban administrators, 69% for urban, and 61% for those from rural areas or small towns.

[CLICK HERE for the Original Article]

_ _ _ _ _

   These concerns—with comparable data—were reported by NBC News (January 3, 2022) in an article, “The Pandemic is Affecting Student Behavior, Prompting Questions over Discipline.

   In this article, Erin Einhorn wrote (with some edits included):

The list of challenges facing school administrators as they head into the new year is long and daunting: crippling staff shortages, nasty battles over mask-wearing, deep academic deficits, terrifying sickness and disruptive quarantines. 

 

On top of that, administrators are also navigating difficult questions about how best to respond to student discipline issues, including violence, which some educators say has been a growing concern this school year. 

 

“In the first nine weeks of school, we had more physical aggression in terms of fights than we probably had in the last maybe three or four years combined,” said Crystal Thorpe, the principal of Fishers Junior High School in suburban Indianapolis, who said her students had difficulty transitioning back to full-time in-person classes. 

 

Thorpe’s seventh and eighth grade students are not only reeling from trauma and loss related to the pandemic — they also missed out on social interaction at a crucial time in their development, Thorpe said, meaning they returned to school lacking skills like conflict management that they ordinarily learn from their peers. 

 

Thorpe issued an unusually high number of suspensions early in the school year — seven by the end of October, compared to none before Halloween the previous three years, she said — after her staff members broke up fights in the hallways, the cafeteria and by the buses. In one instance, she said, two girls who are normally friends started slapping each other in a dispute over potato chips. 

 

Ronn Nozoe, the CEO of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, said he’s heard from members around the country that they’re seeing higher-than-usual rates of fights, drug use and other discipline issues and are struggling with how to respond.

 

His members don’t want to suspend or expel students, he said, but they have limited resources to address the emotional causes of students’ behavior while also keeping their buildings safe. . . (E)ducators note that some schools don’t have the staff, skills or resources to effectively respond to discipline challenges without conventional tools like suspensions, especially given staffing issues that have made it difficult for schools to hire enough counselors to serve students’ needs. Hiring issues have also reduced the number of aides available to monitor hallways and support students with disabilities. 

 

“These are deep problems,” Nozoe said. “You know, ‘We don’t have a place to live,’ or ‘My parents lost their job,’ or ‘My uncle died,’ or ‘I don’t have hope.’ These are not issues that you’re going to go to a counselor for 30 minutes and be done with. These are issues that are deep, and some of those issues are not resolvable at the school level.”

 

“Is sending them home the best, you know, unsupervised? No,” (Crystal Thorpe, the suburban Indianapolis principal,) said, noting that students might not be safe at home or might view suspensions as a reward, a chance to play video games. “But keeping them here in an agitated state where they are disrupting the entire school?” she asked. “That’s not the best answer either.” 

[CLICK HERE for the Original Article]

_ _ _ _ _

   The increase in the number of social, emotional, and behavioral challenges exhibited by students across the country is not a surprise. . . and it parallels similar increases in crime, violence, and murder in our communities over the past year or more.

   But, as we have emphasized in our Blogs over the years. . .

[Go to: www.projectachieve.info/blog and click on “Classroom Management,” “School Climate,” “Pandemic-Related Strategies,” or any other related term on the middle right-hand side of this page]. . .

·       Schools need to use reliable and valid data to determine whether whole-school, grade-level, classroom, and/or individual student services, supports, or interventions will have the highest probability of success to address the continuum of challenges from student misbehavior to violence; 

·       They need—using their Multi-Tiered Services Team of related service professionals and other— to objectively evaluate and validate the data that identifies the (typically, multiple) root causes of group or individual student problems; and 

·       They need to differentiate among student problems that (a) existed before the Pandemic, (b) have begun during the Pandemic and as an indirect or direct result of Pandemic-related conditions or events, or (c) have begun during the Pandemic, but are coincidental to the Pandemic and have no relationship to Pandemic-related conditions or events.

   Beyond this, schools also need to address student challenges by:

·       Using science-to-practice principles and procedures—avoiding what we call “intervention roulette” where “popular press,” or “testimonial-based” interventions are randomly thrown at the challenge-of-the-day; 

·       Using, building onto, modifying, or establishing (if it is absent or weak) their primary prevention (or Tier 1) services, supports, and infrastructure—avoiding the inclination to introduce a “special or specialized (Tier 2 or 3) program or intervention” just to address what appear to be Pandemic-related problems; and 

·       Implementing any new services, supports, or interventions with integrity—recognizing that the “right” intervention implemented the “wrong” way may exacerbate existing problems and/or make them more resistant (down the road) to change.

   In the next two sections, we outline two sets of science-to-practice principles and procedures to effectively guide those with one or more specific school discipline, classroom management, or individual student social, emotional, or behavioral challenges.

   The first section discusses, at the systems level, a strategic planning process for an entire school, district, or related setting. The second section outlines ten principles for effective behavior management at the grade, classroom, and student levels.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Strategic Planning for the Usual and Unusual

   Strategic planning is the key to a successful school- or district-wide initiative. Critically, there is a gigantic body of strategic planning science. While the science is not always definitive, when an evidence-based blueprint is used, the results are usually positive and impactful.

   For schools needing to address high(er) levels of student misbehavior through school violence, as emphasized above, they need to avoid immediately bringing in a “special or specialized program or intervention” unless so indicated by the data collected through the strategic planning process below.

   We have discussed strategic planning before—in an August 22, 2020 Blog titled, “How Would Covey Organize an SEL School Initiative? Strategically Planning for the Usual and the Unusual.”

[CLICK HERE to Read that Entire Blog]

   Organized using Covey’s “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” the strategic planning principles and practices are summarized below—as applied to the implementation of a school-wide SEL initiative... an initiative completely relevant to addressing students’ current behavioral challenges.

_ _ _ _ _

   In our 2020 Blog, we connected Covey’s 7 Habits to seven related action steps:

·       Be Proactive—Do Your Homework

·       Begin with the End in Mind—Specify Your Desired Outcomes

·       Put First Things First—Go Slow to Go Fast

·       Think Win-Win—Honor Your Colleagues

·       Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood—Listen to the Children

·       Synergize—Set Your Mission, Role, and Function

·       Sharpen the Saw—Resource, Train, and Support

_ _ _ _ _

Habit/Action 1: Be Proactive—Do Your Homework

   At the beginning of a strategic planning process, educators need to:

·       Complete a Data-Based Up-to-Date Status Evaluation. This involves the collection and analysis of (at least) the past three years’ worth of information and outcomes related to the initiative being focused on. This is done so that statistical trend analyses can be completed. 

·       Complete a Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis. The Needs Assessment uses the results of the Status Evaluation above to determine the multifaceted student, staff, and organizational needs related to the initiative. This is especially guided by the Gap Analysis which identifies the gaps that exist between the current status of the school, and where it wants, expects, or must go. 

·       Complete a SWOT Analysis. A SWOT Analysis is a strategic planning process where schools identify their (a) Strengths, Assets, and Accomplishments; (b) Weaknesses and Limitations; (c) Opportunities and Resources; and (d) Threats and Barriers related to the initiative.  A SWOT Analysis typically looks at both internal organizational (school and district) characteristics, and external situational or setting (community, state, national) characteristics.

_ _ _ _ _

Habit/Action 2: Begin with the End in Mind—Specify Your Desired Outcomes

   Too many schools plan their initiatives as a bunch of activities (many that have never been field-tested and validated with the types of students who walk their hallways), rather than focusing on what they want their students to eventually do due to the initiative.

   As Covey would emphasize, once you determine—at the beginning of your planning processes—your short- and long-term outcomes, you can work backwards and evaluate proposed goals, actions, practices, and activities with the question:

“Will these goals, actions, practices, and activities help our school to attain these outcomes in a cost-, time-, and resource-effective way? 

   For a social-emotional learning initiative, there are many possible “ends in mind.”  Among the broad target areas are the following:

·       School safety and prevention,

·       Positive school culture and classroom climate,

·       Classroom discipline and management,

·       Student engagement and self-management,

·       Health, Mental Health, and Wellness

·       Teasing and bullying,

·       Harassment and physical aggression,

·       Office discipline referrals and suspensions/expulsions,

·       Disproportionality and effective approaches to replace zero tolerance policies, and

·       Preventing and responding to students’ mental health status and needs.

_ _ _ _ _

Habit/Action 3: Put First Things First—Go Slow to Go Fast

   Every important district or school initiative should have a Leadership or Planning Team that has representatives from every constituency likely to be touched by the initiative. Critically, who is chosen to be on the Social-Emotional Learning Leadership Team (SLT) is paramount, as the Team must represent not just positions, experience, expertise, and perspectives, but also district and community demographics and diversity.

   As school climate and social-emotional learning necessarily involve issues of gender, geography, race, socio-economic and multi-cultural status, sexual orientation, and disability, the SLT Team needs to be chosen with an eye toward “equity-based representation.”

   That is, Team membership should not necessarily reflect just district staff or community demographics. If that occurs, it is likely that there will be very few staff with disabilities and/or from black, brown, and other multicultural backgrounds on the Team. If we are truly committed to giving voice to staff (and students) from these backgrounds, it is not appropriate to put these few individuals in a potential role where they feel that they have to speak “for their people.”

   Indeed, if we are truly committed to addressing the social-emotional learning needs and wants of students with disabilities and from minority and multi-cultural backgrounds (the latter who may be the “majority” of students in our schools), we need to disproportionately weight our SLT Teams with representatives from these groups.

   Beyond this, SLT Team leaders need to “go slow to go fast” by investing the time needed to build team members’ relationships, communication, collaboration, and consensus-building skills and processes.

   This will facilitate the development of sound Action Plans. . . another “slow” area that many planning teams ignore . . . as they either try to write their Action Plan prematurely, or they do not write an effective Action Plan at all.

   Briefly, an effective Action Plan identifies the goals and outcomes of the initiative (see the outcomes above) using a SMART format. SMART is an acronym that stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-based.

   Critically, the SEL Action Plan must explicitly address issues related to gender, geography, race, socio-economic and multi-cultural status, sexual orientation, and disability, and it must be multi-tiered in nature.

   That is, the Plan should include the multi-tiered services, supports, strategies, and programs that address the needs of all students—from those who are gifted, talented, and/or excelling, as well as those students who are at-risk, struggling, and/or challenging. These latter students usually are already known to the school or district, although additional students in need may emerge from the Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis.

_ _ _ _ _

Habit/Action 4: Think Win-Win—Honor Your Colleagues

   In order to initially generate the commitment and energy to sustain a systemic initiative, everyone needs to feel that a “win-win” potential exists.

   While this rarely reaches a 100% consensus, initiatives must begin with the full, clear, and public commitment of at least 80% of everyone involved to the Action Plan. While this starts with the SLT Team’s systematic involvement of these different constituencies in the Action Planning process, it especially requires reaching out to instructional, support, and administrative colleagues.

   This takes time and effort, and it is best guided by asking instructional, support, and administrative staff what they need to feel involved, and how they want the Action Plan approved.

   This is yet another example of “Going slow to go Fast,” and it involves sharing the results of all of the Habit/Actions discussed above.

_ _ _ _ _

Habit/Action 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood—Listen to the Children

   Piggy-backing on Habit/Action 5, initiative planning must also involve the children and adolescents who eventually will be targeted by many initiative activities, and whose social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes will determine the success of the process.

   Too often, we forget to “Listen to the Children.” In most cases, I find this to be an oversight, and not a slight—although some educators do undervalue student input. . . or they are afraid of it.

    Clearly, students’ voices must be continuously, consistently, and systematically heard from the beginning and throughout any social-emotional learning initiative. Implicitly or explicitly, schools should not be “doing things” to students, they should be collaborating, communicating, and carrying activities out with students. 

   Thus, the use of student surveys, focus groups and interviews, observations, and action planning feedback are all essential to a sound Action Plan and the potential success of a multi-year initiative.

   Ultimately, on a social, emotional, and behavioral level, when students support, reinforce, and guide the implementation of critical social-emotional learning practices, everyone wins.

   Similar to Habit/Action 4 above, if students are not involved and committed to a social-emotional learning initiative, they will not engage. And if they do not engage, all of the planning, training, and resourcing will go for naught.

_ _ _ _ _

Habit/Action 6: Synergize—Set Your Mission, Role, and Function

   As part of a new district-wide initiative, many strategic planning experts believe that an Initiative Mission Statement provides a helpful “compass” to keep the initiative on track.

   Typically an extension of the district’s Mission Statement, an Initiative Mission Statement:

·       Specifies the reason(s) for the initiative’s existence and the target populations and/or beneficiaries;

·       Specifies the actions and/or activities that define and operationalize the initiative’s existence and the scope and nature of those programs;

·       Specifies the outcomes of the initiative’s actions and/or activities, and describes what the target populations will look like when the initiative has accomplished its goals; and

·       Guides the development of the initiative’s general and specific objectives, timelines, and activities, acting (once again) as a compass for the semester to semester, month to month, and week to week interactions of targeted staff, students, and significant others.

   From the Mission Statement and embedded in the initiative’s Action Plan, the Roles and Functions of the different training, supervision, implementation, and evaluation “players” in the process is important.

   When written in a formal document, this helps to publicize and clarify who is involved in what parts of the initiative. This also serves to identify areas of shared and solo responsibility and accountability, who the “Go-To” people are (and are not), and where important lines of communication, engagement, and collaboration need to be.

_ _ _ _ _

Habit/Action 7: Sharpen the Saw—Resource, Train, and Support

   When strategic initiatives consciously “sharpen the saw,” they use their Action Plans to prepare for the initiative prior to its formal “roll-out” or implementation, as well as to periodically review, reflect, rejoice, recalibrate, and renew the energy and commitment to the initiative’s goals and outcomes.

   In the former area, too many initiatives fail from the beginning because the district or school has not spent the money and quality time (sometimes an entire year prior to the initiative’s formal roll-out) making sure that (a) the resources are available, (b) the training and coaching has been effectively completed, (c) the staff (and others) are prepared and motivated to implement their parts of the multi-tiered process with integrity and intensity, and (d) a supportive process of progressive and continuous improvement is explicitly evident as a guiding principle.

   In the latter area, formal evaluation, analysis and reflection is needed in every major area of implementation or student, staff, and school outcome. Periodic celebrations are planned, and recalibrated “mid-course corrections” are needed so that everyone shares and commemorates the successes, while realizing that, when miscalculations or “wrong turns” have occurred, Team Leaders are willing to acknowledge and change them for the better.

   In these ways, initiative participants do not burn out, they have opportunities to renew their energy, and they can take heart in the transparency of the process and the dedication to growth and success.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Ten Principles for Effective Behavior Management at the Grade, Classroom, and Student Levels

   Many times over the years, our Blogs have described the five interdependent science-to-practice components of an effective school discipline, classroom management, and student self-management system.

   This was most recently done in our August 14, 2021 Blog, “The Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color Do Not Require Anti-Bias Training.”

[CLICK HERE to Read this Blog]

   And we complemented the August Blog with another one from an SEL perspective on October 23, 2021, “Addressing Students’ SEL Pandemic Needs by Addressing their SEL Universal Needs: What Social, Emotional, Attributional, and Behavioral Skills Do ALL Students Need from an SEL Initiative?”

[CLICK HERE to Read this Blog]

_ _ _ _ _

   Below, we add value to these two Blogs by identifying the Ten Principles for Effective Behavior Management. These “building-block” principles are important for any schools needing to address students’ challenging behavior— whether Pandemic-related or not.

·       Principle 1. We need to teach the social skills, and classroom and building routines that we expect students to demonstrate.  “Teaching” involves students learning the “Skills and Scripts” through teacher instruction, modeling, role playing and performance feedback, and the transfer of this training to real-life situations.

 

·    Principle 2. When teaching social skills, we need to simulate “conditions of emotionality” and guide students through positive practices of the social skills—so that they are better able to handle the real emotional situations in their lives and into the future.

 

·     Principle 3. We need to continually give students opportunities to practice and apply their social skills. Social skills are never fully mastered—students just progress to the “next level” of development and maturation. These “next levels” often require more sophisticated social skills to respond to more complex social interactions and situations.

 

·      Principle 4. Social skill “success” at the preschool level means that students (a) respond to adult social skill prompts (b) within a reasonable amount of time, and (c) that they are able to demonstrate their social skills for longer and longer periods of time without prompting. As students get older, and with continued social skills training and reinforcement, they will demonstrate their social skills more automatically and independently.

 

·   Principle 5. Positive responses and incentives best motivate students to use their social skills. The most motivating ratio of positives to negatives is for students to experience 5 positive interactions (from adults, peers, self) for every negative interaction.

 

·   Principle 6. Skills need to be taught and learned in order for incentives and consequences to motivate future appropriate behavior. You can’t motivate a student out of a skill deficit.

 

·  Principle 7. When students make bad choices, meaningful consequences (used strategically) should be used to communicate to them that they have made a bad choice, and to motivate them to make a good choice the next time (in the future). However, bad choices occur across a continuum of intensity. Students who demonstrate significant, violent, or dangerous behavior need administrative actions complemented by root cause analyses to determine why the extreme behavior is occurring.

 

·     Principle 8. When using consequences (strategically), adults need to use the most strategic consequence for the student, and the mildest consequence needed to motivate a (future) change of behavior (use the Behavioral Matrix).

 

·   Principle 9. “If you consequate, you must educate.” Restorative practices should be built-into the consequences that occur when students demonstrate disruptive or anti-social behavior, but these practices will not change student behavior if (as above) students do not have the social, emotional, or behavioral skills needed to behave or interact appropriately the next time.

 

·   Principle 10. Discipline and behavior management consistency by teachers, support staff, and administrators is essential to both prevent and respond to student behavior.  Inconsistency undercuts or undermines student accountability, and this often results in continued, more extreme, or more resistant inappropriate behavior.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Given the increasing number of social, emotional, and behavioral challenges exhibited by students in schools across the country this school year, this Blog encouraged schools to avoid “crisis-oriented” reactions and responses.

   Instead, we recommended using a strategic planning approach that is guided by both systemic and student-specific principles and practices.

   To do this, we first emphasized the following:

·       Schools need to use reliable and valid data to determine whether whole-school, grade-level, classroom, and/or individual student services, supports, or interventions will have the highest probability of success to address the continuum of challenges from student misbehavior to violence; 

·       They need—using their Multi-Tiered Services Team of related service professionals and other—to objectively evaluate and validate the data that identifies the (typically, multiple) root causes of group or individual student problems; and 

·       They need to differentiate among student problems that (a) existed before the Pandemic, (b) have begun during the Pandemic and as an indirect or direct result of Pandemic-related conditions or events, or (c) have begun during the Pandemic, but are coincidental to the Pandemic and have no relationship to Pandemic-related conditions or events.

   Beyond this, we also noted that schools need to address student challenges by:

·       Using science-to-practice principles and procedures—avoiding what we call “intervention roulette” where “popular press,” or “testimonial-based” interventions are randomly thrown at the challenge-of-the-day; 

·       Using, building onto, modifying, or establishing (if it is absent or weak) their primary prevention (or Tier 1) services, supports, and infrastructure—avoiding the inclination to introduce a “special or specialized (Tier 2 or 3) program or intervention” just to address what appear to be Pandemic-related problems; and 

·       Implementing any new services, supports, or interventions with integrity—recognizing that the “right” intervention implemented the “wrong” way may exacerbate existing problems and/or make them more resistant (down the road) to change.

   We then detailed some important systems-level principles and practices—applying Covey’s 7 Habits to the current student behavior problem. This was followed by a discussion of the Ten Principles for Effective Behavior Management.

_ _ _ _ _

   As noted in the Introduction to this Blog, I know that I can’t provide all of the information needed to fully address any problem that I write about. And yet, I always try to provide evidence-based blueprints that can guide your analyses of a targeted problem—if present in your classroom, school, district, or other setting—toward greater objective understanding and field-tested, proven action.

   Over the years, once they read a specific Blog, many administrators, supervisors, program directors, and others contact me, asking for the more personal, consultative support needed to apply information in the Blog to their specific or unique site-based situations.

   I love it when this happens. . . because I love to work, personally and collaboratively, with colleagues to help them to truly solve their significant, persistent, or systemic challenges.

   And to “give back” to those who contact me, I always provide the first consultation—individually or with a selected team of professionals—“on the house.” 

   As always, I hope that the blueprints and discussion in this Blog are useful to you. As we continue to address Pandemic-related issues, we clearly need to differentiate the issues that existed before the Pandemic and those that are Pandemic-specific. And we need to use the science-to-practice principles that will best guide us to success on behalf of all of our students, staff, and schools.

   Once again, if I can help you, your colleagues, your school, your district, or your professional setting to address your students’ social, emotional, or behavioral challenges, send me an email and let’s set up a time to talk.

Best,

Howie

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