feature story
School Improvement in the Era of ESSA: A collaborative approach BY LAURA M. SCHNEBELEN
T
HE ACCOUNTABILITY MOVEMENT AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized in 2001 to be known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), significant changes were made to the ways districts could access federal education funds. Schools receiving federal funds were required to assess students in grades three through eight once per year in reading and math. If achievement did not continue to increase, punitive consequences, such as loss of federal funding and school reorganization were possible. As a result, school improvement strategies focused teacher development and student success based solely on academic measures. Also prior to NCLB, state and federal agencies recognized the impact of non-academic barriers on child development. This was in response to the 1983 report, “A Nation At Risk.” As a response to the report’s findings, school-wide social-emotional supports were funded and researched. Support grew for adequate funding of school support professionals and community-based programs to reduce the impact of living in poverty. Since child social-emotional well-being was not included in NCLB, funding of these programs and support for continued research dwindled at the federal and state level. As a result, between 2001 and 2015, very little research supported student social-emotional growth and well-being. The early years of the 21st century also saw a massive increase in the prevalence of school violence. Hundreds of school shootings have occurred since NCLB was signed, not including acts of bullying and student aggression. Suicide continues to be pervasive in adolescents, and NCLB provided no federal dollars to support a clearly urgent need. ESSA AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT In December 2015, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized, now recognized as Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The 2015 version provides federal funds to support social-emotional learning (SEL), train school staff in SEL practices, and support states in developing curriculum to build resilience and problem-solving. In Ohio, the funding change has impacted our state strategic education plan by prioritizing academic success and SEL development equally. A COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENT
APPROACH
TO
SCHOOL
Prior to the age of accountability, comprehensive models for school improvement were researched and developed across the state. Joseph Zins, a researcher at the University of Cincinnati, was particularly
34
principal navigator
noteworthy for alternate model research within the state. In their article, “Moving Prevention from the Fringes into the Fabric of School Improvement,” Adelman and Taylor proposed a systemic approach to school improvement that tiers student academic supports and student enabling supports. In education, we refer to this as socialemotional learning. The authors also note the importance of communitybased supports. As of 2000 and still today, those supports are often disconnected with the institution of education. In their article, “Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development Through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning,” Greenberg et al. make the case for coordinated and integrated social-emotional and academic learning. The Ohio Department of Education has adopted a strategic plan that equalizes the four components of a well-rounded education. These four components are reflective of Greenberg’s model. In the graphic on the next page, supports and expertise noted in the SEAL model are aligned to the tiered response to intervention (RTI) framework. Tier 1 addresses school-wide practices, tier 2 addresses needs to a specifically-identified group, and tier 3 represents individualized practices. Adelman and Taylor represent these tiers of support as systems of prevention (1), systems of early intervention (2), and systems of care (3). SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IN THE ERA OF ESSA With federal and state funds now available to support student enabling practices, we have the opportunity, as school leaders, to promote those practices as an integral component of the school improvement process. A collaborative approach to SEL within the school would provide school counselors and social workers opportunities to build collaborative practices with classroom teachers. Likewise, collaboration would help school staff to appropriately identify those students who need additional skills in problem-solving and managing the non-academic barriers that impact their academic success. Confidentiality defines the role of mental health professionals currently funded by mental health boards, private insurance, and prevention grants. A collaborative approach to school improvement could establish an agreement to guarantee open communication between the school and the mental health professional. As Ohio refines and adopts SEL standards, this process could serve as an impetus to move beyond the current school improvement model and work to improve schools through a collaborative approach, which
