By Susan M. Ebbers

Coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), the Common Core State Standards have swept the nation; nearly every state has sanctioned the call for students to read more complex texts. In response, publishers are rapidly preparing more challenging texts, referring to the exemplars listed in Appendix B of the Standards, including works by Sophocles, Alexis de Tocqueville and Fyodor Dostoevsky. These types of texts will be Waterloo for some students, and the battle begins in kindergarten with a call to understand—and hopefully enjoy—As I was Going to St. Ives. How can teachers help readers meet this challenge? In part, the solution lies in developing metacognitive insights and abilities—including metalinguistic awareness.

Metalinguistic awareness requires a keener than normal conscious, declarative awareness of language. We demonstrate this type of metacognition when weremove language from context in order to reflect on it and manipulate it. Metalinguistic awareness is an important ingredient in learning to read, spell and understand words (Donaldson, 1978). Moreover, as Nagy suggests, it explains a portion of the otherwise unexplained variance in comprehension scores, when other important variables have been controlled (2007). Boosting metalinguistic awareness has significant effect on reading comprehension (Cain, 2007; Zipke, 2007, 2011; Zipke, Ehri, & Cairns, 2009). English Language Learners benefit from metalinguistic awareness lessons, too, including metamorphological instruction (Carlo et al., 2004; Ginsberg, Honda, O’Neil, 2011; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Kiefer, 2010).

Metalinguistic awareness is a cognitive dynamo. At maximum potential, it includes increased awareness of phonemes and syllables and rhymes/rimes, of meaning-bearing morphemes, words, and phrases, of syntax, word referents, and appositives, of denotations, connotations, and lexical ambiguities, of homonyms, synonyms, and antonyms, of slang, dialect, and jargon, of academic language and figurative devices like metaphor, imagery, personification, and more. Writ large, metalinguistic awareness envelopes every atom of language.

Researchers have long proclaimed the critical role of phonological awareness (PA) in helping children blend and segment sounds in words. In the past decade, two more types of metalinguistic insight have surfaced repeatedly in reading research journals: morphological awareness (MA) and orthographic awareness (OA). If a student grows in MA, s/he becomes increasingly aware that words sharing the same base or root are similar in form and meaning. For example, the child notices similarities across painted, painter, paintings, painterly, and repaint, at the same time realizing that pain –while somewhat similar in form—is not related to this morphological family.  MA also includes knowledge of common suffixes and prefixes.

If a student grows in OA, s/he becomes more aware of the English system of writing, realizing that something “just looks wrong” when presented with “illegal” spellings, such as words beginning with ck or words containing three identical vowels in a row, as in *seeer. As this insight matures, students gradually realize that foreign loan words allow the inclusion of spellings not aligned with English orthography, as in beau, hoi polloi, and faux pas.

Recently, Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, and Carlisle (2010) conducted a longitudinal study spanning first grade to sixth grade in two cohorts (N = 241 students), investigating growth curves for three types of metalinguistic awareness: MA, OA, and PA. They found that PA and receptive OA grew from first to third grade and then tapered off or reached a plateau, for most students. Expressive OA continued to grow a bit after third grade. Meanwhile, MA grew rapidly from first to third grade and then continued to grow, but less rapidly, through sixth grade. Furthermore, MA influenced word knowledge: Vocabulary knowledge was significantly related to how well the student understood that derivational suffixes influence the grammatical category of the word—for example, that instrument is not grammatically the same as instrumentalist or instrumentally, even though there is semantic overlap. Reading comprehension is partially explained by growth in MA (Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006).

As educators, we promote metalinguistic awareness by making explicit salient aspects of the targeted linguistic concept—the logic behind understanding multiple-meaning words, drawing an inference, or grasping how compound words convey meaning morphologically, for example. We promote keener consciousness when we point out how any detail of language works, making our thoughts transparent in a think-aloud with visual modeling, or when we ask students to explain their reasoning—and we give them feedback. If we exploit metalinguistic insight, we influence word reading, spelling, and vocabulary while moving the ball towards the end goal: comprehension. Thus, we might heed the clarion call of linguist Bill Nagy (2007): “Vocabulary instruction needs to be more explicitly metalinguistic, that is word consciousness is an obligatory, not an optional, component” (p. 54).

What about the brave new Common Core? Do they mention the term metalinguistic in the English Language Arts Standards? Alas, no. However, Appendix A circles loosely around the topic (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010):

The reader brings to the act of reading his or her cognitive capabilities (attention, memory, critical analytic ability, inferencing, visualization); motivation (a purpose for reading, interest in the content, self-efficacy as a reader); knowledge (vocabulary and topic knowledge, linguistic and discourse knowledge, knowledge of comprehension strategies); and experiences.

In another section of the document, metacognitive strategies are mentioned. The Standards, and the forthcoming standards-aligned assessments, are fairly agnostic to instructional methods—they do not care HOW we teach—only that students learn. Professional discretion is encouraged; teachers and administrators decide how to address the Standards, including how to develop metacognitive insight, as indicated in Key Design Considerations:

By emphasizing required achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed. Thus, the Standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or the full range of metacognitive strategies [formatting added] that students may need to monitor and direct their thinking and learning. Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards.

By integrating the two excerpts above, one might (might) infer that the National Governors Association did indeed include metalinguistic development in the Common Core. I only wish they had been more deliberate about it. Perhaps educators can assign a portion of their discretionary non-standards-aligned time to this goal. Without conscious awareness of language, second graders may be frustrated by The Jumblies (Edward Lear). Indeed, if lessons do not include an explicit focus on metalinguistic awareness, we could be sending our schools to sea—in a sieve.

Susan M. Ebbers, a former teacher and principal, authored several supplemental materials published by Cambium Learning, including Vocabulary through Morphemes, Daily Oral Vocabulary Exercises (with coauthor Jill Carroll), Power Readers, and Supercharged Readers. She is a doctoral candidate at UC Berkeley, investigating various aspects of metalinguistic awareness, and the publisher of Vocabulogic (visit http://vocablog-plc.blogspot.com).
About Susan M. Ebbers

Books by Susan M. Ebbers: Vocabulary Through Morphemes, Power Readers, Supercharged Readers, Daily Oral Vocabulary Exercises (DOVE)

From “Who Is to Blame” to “How Can We Support Each Other and Our Students to Be More Successful?”



By Jeffrey Sprague

Many teachers experience enormous stress while attempting to “discipline” disruptive students, and often do not feel adequately supported by their colleagues, parents, or society. Teachers often tell me, “I just want something that works,” and yet, when I ask them how they define “what works,” they are unclear about the goals of behavior change, how to measure change, and how long it will take to get there. This lack of perceived job control (“I don’t feel like I am in control of what I need to be effective”) and professional efficacy (“I feel like what I am doing is not making a difference”) results in high levels of stress and can directly lead to burnout or other unhealthy responses to the problem. Fully one half of all new teachers leave the field within their first four years of practice, citing students with behavioral challenges and their parents as one of the main reasons.

Over the past 15 years, the use of “consequences”—such as office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions—has skyrocketed, particularly among poor and nonwhite students. Paradoxically, these practices actually increase aggressive behavior, truancy, vandalism and school dropout/disengagement.

A common response is to increase the length of time to remove a student from the classroom or from school if a behavior problem is not resolved quickly. For teachers, the temporary “relief” from removing a student quickly vanishes when the student returns with the same challenges. This only makes the problem worse in the long term for both student and teacher. Some teachers respond to this spiraling cycle by demanding ever more intense “punishment,” others may simply work harder to try to solve each student’s problems, and still others will engage in harmful behaviors such as complaining about or criticizing students, parents, colleagues, and “the system.” In the worst situations, teachers resort to alcohol or drug use (prescribed and otherwise) in order to “cope.” Each response may bring some short-term relief but will exacerbate the problem in the end. There has to be a “new move.”

Alongside a general interest in restorative justice in society at large, attention has turned to the development of restorative justice practices in educational settings and how this might respond to some of the continuing concerns about discipline and violence in schools. As it has developed in the criminal justice system, restorative justice seeks to provide (perhaps for the first time) a much clearer framework for restitution and repair. In this framework, misbehaviors can result in sanctions, but within a context where the relationship damaged by the misbehavior is the priority and based on the premise that this damaged relationship can and should be repaired—and that the offending individual can and should be reintegrated, not only for the good of that individual but also for that of the community as a whole.

Balanced and Restorative Discipline brings us this “new move,” and I have already seen the positive benefits of using restorative principles and practices in my work with teachers all over the world. Restorative discipline training works to help teachers clarify their core values about their work with colleagues and students and reminds them that their core mission is to help students become “safe, respectful, and responsible.” First they become collectively clear about what those behaviors look like, and second we model those values ourselves.

We embed restorative practices in our staff development and consultation in positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) to help teachers accept that change is very difficult for some students. We also help teachers “reframe” their views of students by emphasizing that their problems are likely a result of delayed skill development in key social areas (e.g., impulse control, problem solving, empathy) and not just a matter of “misbehaving.” Finally, taking valued action on a daily and long-term basis requires teachers to remain mindful of their core values and plans. The most powerful methods we have learned are to share data regularly about improvements or new problems (mindfulness) and to teach problem-solving methods (often called Functional Behavior Assessment) so we can systematically pursue our values.

I hold great respect and hope for our teachers, and believe that restorative practices provide a foundational framework for improving our sense of effectiveness and personal well-being.

Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D., is an associate professor of special education and codirector of the University of Oregon Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior. In 2001, he helped establish the Oregon Center for School Safety. Sprague has been a teacher, a behavioral consultant, and director of the Center for School and Community Integration.

About Jeffrey Sprague

Books by Jeffrey Sprague: Best Behavior, Whole School Leader

By Lucy Hart Paulson

After a recent training on developing early literacy skills, an early childhood educator shared this comment:

“The information I received in my educational training was not specific in literacy instruction. I feel early childhood educators lack the knowledge base to teach these skills. Even for teachers who have been trained, their opinions vary drastically as to the most appropriate way to teach these concepts.”

You can sense the level of frustration and concern this teacher felt with the depth of knowledge needed to help young children learn the early literacy skills vital to their development. The content was not provided at a preservice level in college, and there is a general lack of understanding of how to use evidence-based practice in early childhood settings. Within the field, early childhood educators hold a wide range of instructional beliefs and practices.

The Evidence:

• A significant body of research has established the foundational skills of early literacy in oral language, phonological awareness, and print knowledge. Developmental sequences for what children learn within each of these areas have been identified in the preschool years that lead to success in early reading in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade.

• As identified by the National Reading Panel (NRP) in 2000, the two best predictive indicators of successful reading in second grade for children transitioning from preschool and entering kindergarten include phoneme awareness of sounds in words and letter knowledge.

• Teaching preschool children how to segment and blend phonemes in words has been determined to be twice as effective as the same instruction with children in kindergarten with much larger effect sizes for reading outcomes (NRP subgroups, 2000, chp. 2, pg. 24).

• From a developmental perspective, letter-name knowledge generally occurs before letter-sound knowledge (Neuman, 2000). The skills that are needed for letter-sound understanding reside in letter-name knowledge and phoneme or sound sensitivity. Letter-name knowledge often serves as a bridge to letter-sound knowledge.

• Preschool children can successfully learn these skills when they are intentionally and explicitly taught (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; NRP, 2000).

• Knowing what the target skills are in each of the early literacy foundations and having an assessment plan to assess them early to then provide needed instruction are components of high-quality early childhood settings.

• Young children are capable of learning a lot; and we have, at times, underestimated their abilities.

• Children who learn to be competent readers and writers are more likely to experience success in school and beyond with positive societal and economic impacts.

• The activities used to teach these skills can be fun, engaging, effective, and developmentally appropriate.

Historic Practices in Early Childhood Education:

• The scope and sequence of curricula broadly used in early childhood educational settings, such as those implemented in many Head Start programs, have not been designed to systematically, intentionally, and explicitly teach the early literacy skills that provide the foundation for early reading and writing.

• There is a strong focus within early childhood settings on creating language- and literacy-rich environments designed to follow children’s leads and respond to their interests.

• Skill development is more likely to be embedded into everyday classroom routines and activities through exploration and play.

• Intentional and explicit instruction is considered by some not to follow developmentally appropriate practice (DAP).

Characteristics of High-Quality Early Childhood Settings:

• Teachers are well-trained in understanding the developmental sequences and age expectations of the skills young children learn in building their early literacy foundations.

• An ongoing assessment process is in place to identify what children know and to monitor their progress.

• An evidence-based curriculum is in use with a scope and sequence that result in developmentally appropriate learning outcomes of the skills that children need to acquire.

• There is a balance between teacher-directed and child-directed activities.

• Developmentally appropriate practices are used.

Supporting Early Childhood Educators:

Developmentally  appropriate practice includes teaching approaches that consider (NAEYC, 2009):

• Knowledge of the sequences of child development, learning to set achievable and challenging goals for literacy learning, and planning and using teaching strategies that vary with age and experience of learners

• An ongoing assessment procedure that identifies individual children’s progress in literacy in order to plan successive lessons or to adapt instruction when children do not make expected progress or are at advanced levels

• An understanding of social and cultural contexts that affect how children make sense of their learning experiences in relation to what they already know and are able to do

Early childhood educators are dedicated professionals who make a significant difference in the lives of the children in their care. Providing these professionals with the knowledge of early literacy foundations and the support to use evidence-based assessment and instruction strategies should be standard practice in all educational settings, beginning with preservice opportunities, continuing and ongoing in-service experiences, and follow-along coaching in the settings where young children are learning. Our children deserve nothing less.

Lucy Hart Paulson, Ed.D., CCC-SLP, is a literacy specialist with years of experience working with young children and their families in public school, Head Start, private, and university settings. She is on the faculty of the Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders at the University of Montana, sharing responsibilities for teaching, supervising, research, and service. Lucy is the lead author of Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) for Early Childhood Educators; Building Early Literacy and Language Skills (BELLS), a resource and activity guide for young children; and Good Talking Words, a social communication skills program for preschool and kindergarten classes.

About Lucy Hart Paulson

Books by Lucy Hart Paulson: LETRS Second Edition, LETRS for Early Childhood Educators, Good Talking Words, Building Early Literacy and Language Skills (BELLS)

By Pati Montgomery

Schools and districts have responded to AYP and increased accountability with professional development for teachers that aligns to data, is specific to student needs, and focuses on increasing academic achievement through teacher effectiveness. All attempts to increase student achievement by focusing on educator effectiveness should be seen as a step in the right direction. But in our attempts to focus on the frontline, have we forgotten to enhance the effectiveness of those leading the charge—our principals?


With a conglomerate set of consumers and demanders—including the federal government, the state and its initiatives to meet federal mandates, and not least of all the local community, whose knowledge base of “what good educators do” has grown exponentially in the past decade—principals are besieged with paperwork, demands, and little spare time to increase their own efficacy. Yet their impact is significant; it is second only to teaching among school-related factors in its impact on student learning.

School leadership training has changed little over the past 20 years. The focus has been on school management practice and not leadership reform. Preparation programs for school leaders are usually led by former school principals who haven’t recently stepped into school buildings, with the exception of seeing their student-interns. Usually they have not had recent experience in high-need school cultures—an area desperate for well-trained, exceptional school leaders. Their training or leadership experience can only be characterized as theoretical or hypothetical.

Beyond leadership preparation, the story appears to worsen. After a principal is placed in a building, little or nothing takes place to enhance his/her skills. Quality professional development for principals seems to be an oxymoron. Districts are recognizing this and doing their best, but recognition is coming at the same time as extraordinary budget constraints. Public schools have budgets so tight that little is left for anything except mandatory expenditures. District leadership is further overburdened because of fiscal constraints; there are no extra personnel resources to tend to earnest, quality professional development for school leaders.

Is it a hopeless situation given the economic current in public education?

Frankly, school reform will not occur unless leadership reform occurs. The best professional development for teachers cannot be sustained and supported unless there are knowledgeable principals supporting teachers’ efforts. Further, the population within our schools is changing dramatically from year to year. Principals who were in a school with a 30 percent poverty rate just three years ago may now be facing a poverty rate of 60 percent in the same school. Focused, quality professional development is critical to create the right skill sets to meet changing student needs.

Perhaps by rethinking what good principals need in order to be effective—and then creating a resourceful way of delivering the information—we can find the answers we seek. In an age of accountability and reform, school leaders need to have the following skills:

• The ability to foster high expectations in school communities: Successful school leaders have developed skills that engender high expectations for both teachers and students in a caring environment. They establish school structures that are safe and welcoming with effective communication systems. Principals rarely receive these “how-to’s” in principal preparation programs.

• Instructional knowledge: School leaders need to be able to use data, especially data specific to their school. They must be able to understand the instructional implications that align with that data, support the development of adult and student learning, and model effective teaching practices. They need to know how to continually evaluate curriculum and resources that will ensure sound practices. They should have an understanding of a standards-based instructional system that recognizes good instructional practices and motivates students to increase their achievement.

• Implementation of evaluation systems that support teachers and encourage the exit of poor teachers: Principals need to become evaluation specialists by understanding and utilizing good teaching practices. They need to be able to provide teachers with specific growth-producing feedback and be able to handle honest, difficult conversations with teachers who are failing our students.

So how can we provide principal development in a fiscally responsible manner?

• Problem-solving opportunities: Schools are not stagnant entities, and principals need authentic problem-solving opportunities that mirror situations they face daily. School leaders should have the opportunity to come together with their peers from like schools to solve problems, receive feedback, and reflect on their learning.

• Mentorships and coaching: Principals, particularly in the first several years of their practice, need to have quality mentorships. These mentorships, comprised of accomplished retired principals in similar types of schools, meet on-site with principals weekly or biweekly to offer coaching and just-in-time feedback on real-life situations.

• Cooperative learning situations: In large school districts, school composition varies greatly. In light of such diversity of student populations, districts should form cooperative learning groups of principals from like schools to discuss similar situations. These cooperative learning sessions should give school leaders the opportunity to learn new procedures and consider how to apply that learning before being faced with a situation requiring implementation. These situations also give school leaders a chance to network with their peers and foster a sense of community within their own district. Districts that are using peer observations and feedback within leadership roles are showing positive results. Further, districts could develop instructional leader teams for principals. These teams would be comprised of district leaders who come to schools, or meet with leaders in like schools, with an eye toward developing skills applicable to current situations.

Principals are like the students they lead; they want to be successful. However, the fabric of our schools and the age of accountability require learning new and different skills from those that were obtained in “principal school.” Districts and states must recognize this, and principal development must become a higher priority if our schools are truly to reform.

Written by Pati Montgomery. Ms. Montgomery received a B. A in Elementary Education from Indiana University of Pennsylvania, an M.A. in Special Education from the University of Northern Colorado and Ed. S. certificate in school administration from the University of Denver. She has been both a regular education teacher and a special education teacher and has taught students in grade levels from Kindergarten to seniors in high school. Ms. Montgomery has been with Jefferson County Public Schools for 20 years and taught in Denver Public Schools for 5 years. She has been a special education administrator; an elementary school principal; and a middle school principal. Currently she is the Project Director for a Strategic Compensation Teacher Incentive Fund Grant in Jefferson County, Colorado. Ms. Montgomery spent one year as an editorial director and staff developer for an educational publishing firm.

About Pati Montgomery

Book by Pati Montgomery: A Principal’s Primer for Raising Reading Achievement, Whole School Leader

By Hill Walker

In the past decade or so, our collective awareness of bullying and its harmful effects has grown, due in part to media exposure. Forty-four states now have antibullying laws ranging from highly restrictive to merely increasing public awareness. The U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Justice Department, and national media have all initiated actions to address this growing social toxin in our society.

Definitions and commentary about bullying, which can involve physical intimidation and threats, now commonly include less direct forms of aggression, sometimes referred to as peer harassment or indirect aggression. A subset of this form of bullying is the phenomenon of relational aggression. This is a less confrontational but much more sinister form of aggression because it involves reputational damage that is often not discovered by the victim until after considerable damage has occurred. Relational aggression involves peers ganging up on a targeted victim, often in a conspiratorial fashion, in order to inflict malicious reputational damage.

While the overt bullying and harassment of peers is more likely at younger ages, relational aggression occurs more often among older students in middle and high schools. It involves deliberate plans and attempts to “trash” someone’s reputation and social status for reasons that are invariably not defensible. Relational aggression is accomplished through such techniques as spreading false rumors, revealing confidential information, excluding the person from peer-controlled activities, and rejecting or interfering with his or her attempts to form social relationships among peers. All of these techniques are designed to isolate and socially punish the target(s) and can cause considerable psychological damage, which is all-too-often associated with tragic consequences experienced by the victim.

Recently there have been numerous media accounts of suicides and attempted suicides by the victims of these relentless peer actions. Such events disrupt students’ schooling experience and cause many to miss school in order to avoid the cruelty and shaming associated with bullying.

Cyberbullying: A Whole New Realm

Experts on bullying, harassment, and aggression have been aware of relational aggression for some time. Research shows that even very young children will endorse negative beliefs and characterizations of their peers. However, research on this phenomenon remains at a generally low level of scale, and there have been very few reports of schools’ involvement in addressing or coping successfully with relational aggression that occurs outside the school or in the context of peer-controlled settings that are poorly monitored or supervised by adults and school staff (e.g., playgrounds, before- and after-school areas, school bus stops, cafeterias). Because of its subtle and covert nature, relational aggression is very often difficult for schools to detect and address effectively.

The development of social media technology and the widespread use of cell phones and computers by our children and youth have added a complex and potentially more destructive element to the occurrence of relational aggression among peers. This subrosa form of bullying, harassment, and aggression is called cyberbullying. Aside from interpersonal exchanges, cell phones are now the primary means that peers use to commit acts of mean-spirited relational aggression. Relational aggression perpetuated through cyberbullying is potentially even more psychologically destructive due to its impersonal and often anonymous nature. For example, it is now possible for a single person to send an unlimited number of messages to a cyberbullying victim and make each message appear as if it came from a different individual.

Approximately half of all adolescents say they have been bullied at least once online, and about the same percentage admit to engaging in cyberbullying. More than a third of youth report that they have been the target of online threats. A quarter of teens have been bullied repeatedly through their cell phones or the Internet. In half of all cases, parents are not told about cyberbullying incidents.

The pervasiveness of cyberbullying, its covert nature, and the reluctance of victims to report its occurrence pose serious problems and obstacles for adults who seek to prevent and control it. Laws against bullying often do not address cyberbullying, and they are perceived as less than effective.

Approaches to Addressing Cyberbullying

If one thing seems clear, it is that cyberbullying reaches beyond the purview of the school and is a shared responsibility of youth, parents, and educators. To effectively combat this fast-growing problem, it is essential that these three groups work together effectively. Ideally, a school professional such as a school psychologist, counselor, behavioral specialist, or social worker could take the lead in coordinating these efforts.

A leading expert on cyberbullying is Nancy Willard, who is an attorney and trained special educator (M.S., J.D.). She has been investigating, researching, writing about, and consulting on this topic for the past decade. Willard is the founding director of Embracing Digital Youth. She is author of the following books on the topic of cyberbullying: Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Cruelty, Threats, and Distress (Research Press); Cyber Safe Kids, Cyber Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Learn to Use the Internet in a Safe and Responsible Manner (Jossey Bass); and Cyber Savvy: Embracing Digital Safety and Civility (In Press; Corwin Press). She has developed a sensible approach to addressing cyberbullying that appears to be school and community compatible. It includes the following major components:

• Surveying local conditions involving cyberbullying and providing feedback of results to create positive peer norms designed to change it

• Promotion of safe and responsible uses of the Internet

• Design and training in instructional activities for teachers

• Use of school progress indicators and positive reinforcement to strengthen responsible Internet use

• Program evaluation

There seems to be little doubt that technology and social media enable relational aggression. Our challenge as a society is to forge constructive uses of this media in the context of peer relations.

 
Hill Walker, Ph.D., is codirector of the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior at the University of Oregon’s College of Education.

About Hill Walker

Books by Hill Walker: Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders, First Step to Success, The Acting-Out Child



 

By Jeffrey Sprague

Many educators remark that intense federal and state requirements for demonstrating gains in academic achievement make it difficult to find time to focus on problem behaviors. Yet many (if not all) students who misbehave also present serious learning challenges.

In a misplaced attempt to be “fair” to typical students who are trying to learn, educators may be inclined to “punish” or exclude children who are acting out by using office referrals, suspensions, and even expulsion. “There has to be a consequence!” they say.

Research strongly suggests that if schools raise their level of achievement, behavior problems decrease; and if schools work to decrease behavior problems, academics improve. So why not do both? Especially when we know that punishing at-risk students and using “discipline” to systematically exclude them from schooling does not work. Schools that use office referrals, out-of-school suspensions, and expulsion—without a comprehensive system that teaches positive behaviors and rewards the same—are shown to actually have more problem behavior and academic failure.

Chronic use of referrals, suspensions and expulsion has damaging effects on teacher-student relationships, as well as on student morale and engagement in schooling. These kinds of responses leave the student with reduced motivation to maintain self-control in school, do not teach better ways to behave, and have been shown in the research to have a negative effect on long-term behavioral and academic adjustment. In fact, a history of chronic office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions from school is a known predictor of academic failure, dropout, and delinquency. There must be a better way.

Powerful longitudinal research shows that being engaged in schooling, bonding with teachers and other students, and experiencing academic success all serve as protective factors for students against a number of destructive outcomes, including school failure, delinquency, school dropout, and the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. Preventing such problems can begin with implementation of a multitier model of positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS). When adopted, implemented, and maintained over time, such supports serve the dual purpose of promoting success for the majority of students and reclaiming others.

The Need for Integrated Behavioral and Academic Support Systems

More and more students are bringing well-developed patterns of behavioral and academic adjustment problems to school. At-risk students often come to school with emotional and behavioral difficulties that interfere with their attempts to focus and learn. Others may have interpersonal issues with other students or educators that make concentrating on learning difficult. Bullying, mean-spirited teasing, sexual harassment, and victimization are relatively commonplace occurrences on school campuses, and these behaviors clearly compete with the mission of closing the achievement gap.

Evidence-based best practice for supporting these students begins with identifying problems early—whether they are academic, emotional, behavioral, or interpersonal. After identification, interventions become essential to addressing the problem directly and thus reducing obstacles to successful school adjustment. If appropriate educational and behavioral supports were more widely provided, the long-term benefits would greatly exceed the costs.

Basing Interventions on the Intensity of the Problem

The U.S. Public Health Service has developed a classification system of approaches to preventing problem behavior, and schools are now widely adopting it to address both academics and behavior. This system has coordinated and integrated a range of interventions to address the needs of the three student types that are present in different proportions in every school: primary or universal, secondary, and tertiary or intensive.

Universal interventions, applied at the primary prevention level to all students in the same manner and degree, are used to keep problems from emerging in the first place. Some good examples of such interventions include (a) developing a positive schoolwide discipline plan, (b) teaching conflict resolution and violence prevention skills to everyone, (c) establishing high and consistent academic expectations for all students, and (d) using the most effective, research-based methods for teaching beginning reading in the primary grades and supporting all students’ reading performance throughout their school careers.

Individualized interventions, applied to one student at a time or to small groups of at-risk individuals (e.g., alternative classrooms or “schools within schools”) are used to achieve secondary and tertiary prevention goals. Chronically at-risk students “select” themselves out by not responding well to primary prevention efforts and need more intensive intervention services and supports if they are going to be able to change their problem behavior and achieve success within and beyond school. Often these interventions are made out to be too labor intensive, complex, intrusive, and costly. In fact, many of the intensive, evidence-based interventions require low amounts of time from staff, cost little to no money to implement (e.g., self-monitoring, behavioral contracting, systematic school-home note system, check in/check out, and so forth), and they are necessary for delivering effective behavior supports.

By the time a student has reached the level of tertiary prevention, a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) process is a necessary step in order to identify the conditions (e.g., antecedents and consequences) that sustain and motivate the problem behavior and use that information to develop and implement individualized behavior support plans. A comprehensive assessment of family, school, and individual risk (e.g., family stressors, academic failure) and protective factors (e.g., gets along well with peers, controls impulses) is also invaluable in guiding the delivery of a broader system of interventions.

This integrated model provides an ideal means for schools to develop, implement, and monitor a comprehensive management system that addresses the needs of all students in the school. In addition, the model has the potential to positively impact the operations, administration, and overall climate of the school. By emphasizing universal interventions, this system makes the most efficient use of school resources and provides a supportive context for the application of necessary secondary and tertiary interventions for the more challenging students. Finally, it provides a built-in screening and assessment process; that is, by carefully monitoring students’ responses to the primary interventions, it becomes possible to detect those who are at greater risk and in need of more intensive services, increasing the match between student need and intensity of support.

This is known as Response to Intervention (RtI) for Behavior Support.

Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D., is an associate professor of special education and codirector of the University of Oregon Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior. In 2001, he helped establish the Oregon Center for School Safety. Sprague has been a teacher, a behavioral consultant, and director of the Center for School and Community Integration.

About Jeffrey Sprague

Books by Jeffrey Sprague: Best Behavior, Whole School Leader

By Sarla Thal

Bullying. It’s in the news constantly—the most heartbreaking instances being when young people take their own lives because of who they are.

Bullying is not new. Most adults can recall being teased, made fun of, or excluded at some point in their young lives. If not personally, then we knew someone who was a victim of these behaviors. Or, we may have been the ones doing it. And we still may be experiencing bullying as adults.

Bullying often occurs because of differences that we see in others. From the time we are born, we develop a sense of what is “normal.” The behaviors, practices, beliefs, and even skin color of those around us shape what we think of as normal. If we were raised to think that any characteristics and behaviors that are not the same as ours should be feared or considered inferior, then the propensity to harass or bully those we see as different from us may exist. An individual’s sense of “normal” may include race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, appearance (weight, style of dress, unusual features, etc.), and socioeconomic status.

In schools, bullying frequently occurs when the perpetrator, or bully, feels that he/she has more power than his/her victim, or target, and that what makes the target different is inferior to his/her standard of “normal.” This imbalance of power is one of the characteristics of bullying that distinguishes it from other types of conflict.

True bullying is repetitive negative actions toward another individual, is purposely done to demean or devalue the target, and results in a strong emotional reaction on the part of the target. A bullying incident elicits little emotion on the part of the perpetrator as he/she usually blames the victim for who he/she is—and the perpetrator shows no remorse.

Focusing on the issue of how we promote a mind-set of caring and consideration for others is the intent of this blog. Brain research gives some direction to what might reduce the “dislike for the unlike.” From birth, as neurological connections are developed, the self-identity of a child is based on early imprinting about what is normal to that child. If a child is surrounded by a family that is rigid in its religious belief system, for example, the child may develop the perception that any religious ideas outside of that belief system are unacceptable or inferior. However, if those religious beliefs include an acceptance of others’ beliefs, the child’s perceptions and behaviors toward those who believe differently may be less judgmental and divisive.

Educators cannot control the early imprinting that shapes a child’s self-identity and perceptions of acceptance of others. What educators can do is help children understand the characteristics of their own self-identity and recognize that all children have developed a self-identity based on their own experiences. And the earlier the better!

Activities that help children examine where they come from, their culture, and their beliefs allow them to understand their own self-identity. Having children interact one-on- one with others who are different from them will give them the opportunity to appreciate those differences without negative stereotyping and judgment. The process of providing such activities needs to be ongoing in order to bring about a change in thinking. We did not develop our self-identity based on one or two experiences, but rather on continual input (neurological development) as we grew up.

In order to break the cycle of bullying, children must be taught to develop a caring, thinking attitude. This should be the school’s imperative. It should be part of our regular practice with our students in order to develop an inclusive school environment free of bullying and, ultimately, a more caring, accepting society.

Written by: Sarla Thal

By Jill McDonald

We teach our kids to do the right things; to care for and treat people with kindness and respect. Educators teach young people skills to stand up against bullying and focus on building a safe, inclusive, and caring school community. Programs and team-building activities are consistently embedded in the school day. This is done to provide for and reinforce the importance of relationships and to create an environment where every child feels a sense of safety and belonging, in order to feel confident to learn and grow. So why isn’t this enough?

Bullying happens every day, in every school, everywhere. Think about it: As children develop and learn, they try out many behaviors to communicate their needs and get what they want. They require guidance and modeling to learn proper ways of treating one another as they grow.

In an environment where negative behaviors are persistent, it is common for feelings of fear, anxiety, and unhappiness to set in. An environment that tolerates and overlooks ongoing bullying and harassing behaviors can become dangerously toxic, with negative consequences for all. All of this can hinder a person’s physical, emotional, and academic growth and potential.

It is how we work with our kids, empower the bystanders, and respond with interventions and consequences that will determine the severity, number of incidents, and extent of the bullying. These are three important keys to creating a safe and caring climate where young people know they can make a difference and incidents of bullying and harassment are minimized.

Can We Teach Kids to Take a Stand?

Despite the morals and strategies we teach, there are millions of scenarios where bystanders simply remain silent. Sadly, some get caught up in the moment and laugh along or actively join in, participating in the harassment. Do well-known behavioral theories explain this? Do the needs for safety, acceptance, and belonging overpower the sense of doing what is right?

Much research supports the importance of the bystanders’ roles, and bystanders are estimated to be approximately 85 percent of the student body. No doubt, taking a stand and reaching out to the targeted individual takes courage. It is important that young people understand that their courage in a situation may encourage others to take a stand as well.

Reasons children do not take a stand include:

• Afraid of retaliation; afraid for themselves

• Don’t know what to do/do not have effective strategies

• Afraid they will make the situation worse

• Lack self-confidence/don’t believe they can help the situation

• Afraid of losing social status by speaking out

Do not believe that adults can or will help

They do not see it as their responsibility

How do we teach young people that we all have a responsibility for contributing to the creation of a positive climate in our schools, as well as in other areas in our lives? One of the answers may be hidden within ourselves to explore or more fully develop. Let’s put ourselves in our students’ shoes and practice what we are asking them to do by considering:

• What would I do?

• What would I say?

• Is there something that is preventing me from taking a stand?

• What fears might I have?

• How comfortable am I taking a stand?

• Do I see it as my responsibility to take a stand against behaviors that may be negatively

impacting a climate?

Is it difficult for only kids to take a stand? Or do we, even as adults, struggle with the same fears and pressures—realized or not? What we might learn about ourselves from reflecting on these questions may help us to better understand and teach young people important skills for becoming active, caring community members who are willing to take a stand against bullying and negative behaviors. If we are paying attention and consciously making an effort to take a stand in similar situations ourselves, we may become more apt in helping our young people with what they are challenged to do.

October is Bullying Awareness Month. Let’s take the challenge and practice what we teach!

Jill McDonald, M.Ed., has worked as a public educator for the past 20 years.  She has been a middle and high school teacher, an At-Risk Program Coordinator, and has worked as an elementary, middle, and high school administrator.  Her professional career has focused on the development of preventative programs, which serve to eliminate bullying and harassment, increase an appreciation for diversity, and empower students. She has been a leader in district and community-wide diversity programs, where she has gained recognition and awards. Ms. McDonald co-authored Bully-Proofing for High Schools and Engage Every Student: Motivation Tools for Teachers and Parents.  Ms. McDonald is a national trainer for the Bully-Proofing Your School, Creating Caring Communities organization. She has worked as a consultant, providing workshops and trainings for teachers, schools, and Intermediate School Districts. Currently, Ms. McDonald is an elementary principal in the Huron Valley School district and continues to research principles of effective teaching and violence prevention.

About Jill McDonald

Books by Jill McDonald: Bully-Proofing Series

By Howie Knoff

The following issues have been well-chronicled over the past 25 years or longer: teasing, taunting, bullying, and harassment; physical aggression on students’ feelings of safety and security in their schools; students’ academic engagement in the classroom; and, for some, their academic achievement and potential for graduation.

Critically, the impact of these events has been especially highlighted over the past year due to a number of related student suicides—largely due to persistent teasing and harassment—and a recent study correlating high school students’ lower grade point averages with high levels of teasing or bullying.

While different legal and other definitions exist for some of these acts, it is not always clear when teasing becomes taunting, taunting becomes bullying, and bullying becomes harassment. Indeed, the severity or intensity of the event(s) rests more with perception and experience, and less with labels and legalities. What is clear, based on a number of Supreme Court decisions, is that schools are responsible for preventing and responding to teasing, taunting, bullying, harassment, and physical aggression when it occurs. What is also clear is that this is a community problem, and that there are no easy answers.

Significantly, a number of states have recently passed legislation in one or more of these target areas. We strongly encourage educators and others to read the actual legislation, because some states have recommended or mandated that schools develop, for example, teasing or bullying programs. Critically, there is a difference between developing a bullying program (in lowercase), and purchasing a Bullying Program or curriculum (in capital letters). The first is a schoolwide effort that applies the science and practice underlying Positive Behavioral Support Systems (PBSS) to increasing students’ interpersonal, social problem solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional coping skills. The second involves buying a packaged, more specialized curriculum that often does not work in place of or without a PBSS—and that teachers often see as “another thing to do.”

Schoolwide PBSS typically have three levels of implementation. At the prevention level (Tier I), behavioral science and practice recognize that we need to consistently teach and motivate students to use the social, emotional, and behavioral skills that facilitate prosocial interactions at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The instruction must involve behavioral practice (through role plays), behavioral simulation (to facilitate the transfer of training), and positive practice repetition (like a football or basketball team) so that the behaviors become automatic over time.

At the strategic intervention level (Tier II), the skills should be refocused to address, for example, the bullies, the victims, and the peer bystanders. Here, through a combination of skills instruction, transfer, and accountability, the underlying reasons why students bully are addressed by teaching and motivating them:

• To get along more effectively with peers (e.g., using their Self Control, Staying Out of Fights, Accepting No, How to Share, and How to Avoid Trouble skills)

• To deal with their anger or other emotions (e.g., using their Dealing with Anger and Frustration, Accepting a Consequence, Dealing with Losing, and Responding to Failure skills)

• To access peer or adult attention in more appropriate ways (e.g., using Beginning and Ending a Conversation, Giving and Accepting Compliments, Asking for Help, and Convincing Others skills).

Victims, concurrently, need to learn and demonstrate—especially under conditions of emotionality—the skills that help them to avoid bullying situations, to respond appropriately and safely to bullies, and to learn from situations where bullying has occurred in the past. These skills might involve: Standing Up for Your Rights, Being Able to Say “No,” Dealing With Peer Pressure, Walking Away From a Fight, Dealing With Fear, Dealing With Another Person’s Anger, and Helping Someone With a Problem.

Peer bystanders need to learn skills that help them recognize, safely respond to, and resolve bullying situations by interacting either with the bullies or with the victims.

At the intensive need level (Tier III), incidents of teasing, taunting, bullying, harassment, and physical aggression are occurring so frequently, so pervasively across the student body, or at such a significant or severe level that the situation needs to be stabilized and then analyzed. The analysis, which we call a “Special Situations Analysis,” involves looking at how the following areas may be contributing to the problem or could be integrated into a solution:

• Different groups of students in the school

• Different groups of faculty and staff

• The settings where the incidents are or are not occurring

• The motivations supporting prosocial versus antisocial behavior

• Existing or potential resources and how they could be realigned or used to solve the problem

At this level, individuals or small groups of students may need to be involved in specific interventions that target specific behavioral or interactional changes. In addition, based on the results of the Special Situation Analysis, more specialized curricula or programs may be included to supplement the PBSS.

In summary, teasing, taunting, bullying, harassment, and physical aggression have no place in our schools, homes, or communities. Schools are best served when they use evidence-based PBSS to prevent these situations, and to provide planned responses to them if they do occur. Too many schools use targeted bullying programs as substitutes for schoolwide PBSS. Moreover, too many schools focus only on decreasing or eliminating these events, when teaching and motivating students is really what’s needed.

About the Author: Howard M. Knoff, Ph.D., is the director of Project ACHIEVE, a comprehensive, evidence-based national school improvement program. He is also director of the Arkansas Department of Education’s State Improvement/Personnel Development Grant, which is funding the statewide implementation of Project ACHIEVE.

Howie Knoff has authored or coauthored 17 books, published more than 75 articles and book chapters, and delivered more than 500 papers and workshops nationally. He is the author of an upcoming new book titled Classroom Discipline, Behavior Management, and Student Self-Management: Implementing Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Support Systems That Work, as well as the author of The Stop and Think Social Skills Program. He is a past president of the National Association of School Psychologists.

About Howie Knoff

Books by Howie Knoff: Stop & Think Social Skills Program

By Robert Pasternack

As we approach the end of this Federal Fiscal Year on Sept. 30, 2011, we come upon the expiration for obligating funds provided under the supplements to Title I and IDEA through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

More than $100 billion of the ARRA funds went to public education, including the supplements to the formula used to disperse Title I and IDEA funding to school districts across our country. But now Local Education Agencies (LEAs) face what has been described as the “funding cliff,” caused by the need to expend these funds. This cliff is dreaded by education leaders left to deal with chronic and persistent fiscal problems facing most of our 15,000 school districts as we begin the 2011–12 school year.

The ARRA funds were used to compensate for some of the funding cuts that have impacted LEAs as a result of reduced revenues and budgets in most states. Much of the ARRA funding went toward saving teaching jobs. Those teaching positions funded by ARRA now face elimination, and Reduction in Force (RIF) actions are being implemented as we go back to school.

Such fiscal challenges are exacerbated by the fact that nearly 85 percent of districts are expecting funding cuts for the 2011–12 school year. Nearly two-thirds of districts will have to cope with cuts in state and local funding of 5 percent or more, and another fifth of districts will face smaller cuts. “Death by a thousand cuts” is coming to public schools, and for the first time in our nation’s history, federal funding for education has been reduced.

What to Do About the Funding Cliff

Perhaps the most important thing we can do is recognize that more money in education has not led to improved outcomes and results. The Gates Foundation published data suggesting the increases in public school funding are not correlated with a commensurate improvement in academic achievement. While many talk about increased class size, data do not indicate a relationship between class size and academic achievement. In fact, Utah has America’s largest class sizes and some of the best academic achievement data. Washington DC public schools have one of the highest average per pupil expenditures (APPE) in our country, and some of the worst academic outcomes.

In other words, money is necessary but not sufficient to improve academic achievement. Instead of focusing on class size, we need to focus on the importance of the person teaching that class. The most important variable in education research (apart from socioeconomic status) is the quality of the teacher. Paying teachers more money, like reducing class size, has gained political currency and popularity, absent data to suggest this is requisite to improving academic achievement.

Educators need to focus on what works in order to survive and thrive in these challenging times. There are things we can and must do, including:

• Building the capacity of teachers and paraeducators to address the instructional needs of students who struggle

• Making principals into instructional leaders and implementing education reform at the building level

• Deploying research-validated interventions with fidelity and treatment integrity

• Conducting and implementing universal screening and progress monitoring

• Using blended solutions that incorporate technology but are not dependent on that technology

• Getting parents meaningfully engaged in education and embracing meaningful accountability

• Teaching all students to read proficiently by the end of third grade

• Reducing inappropriate referrals to special education

• Increasing the graduation rate and reducing the unacceptable dropout rates

• Continuing to fund research and development to find effective interventions and instructional strategies in education (both special education and general education)

What are you doing to ensure that you are making wise decisions about how to deploy the precious resources provided under ARRA, and how have you used these funds to make long-term changes with the short-term infusion of new resources? The cliff is there, but don’t jump! Instead, build a bridge with the resources you have and get to the other side.

Written by Robert Pasternack.