School Improvement in the Era of ESSA

School Improvement in the Era of ESSA: A collaborative approach

BY LAURA M. SCHNEBELEN

THE 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 APPROACH TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

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

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

Student Academic Supports Student Enabling Supports (Adelman and Taylor, 2000) School-Based Systems (Adelman and Taylor, 2000) Community-Based Supports

delivery method FK & WRC- content standards, LRcontent standards Health Teacher/ School Counselor tier 1 instruction (SEL standards in development 2019) Systems of Prevention/ Tier 1

funding district general, state general district general, state general, Title SEL-tier 1 content/programs

district general, state general, Title, SiG

delivery method FK & WRC- tier 2 group interventions, LR- tier 2 group interventions Social worker/ school counselortier 2 group interventions

funding district general, state general, Title, SiG district general, state general, Title Systems of Early Intervention/ Tier 2 SEL- school-based SEL groups, community agency SEL groups

district and state general, county BHAs, preventative care grants/private funding

FK & WRC- tier 3 interventions, LR- tier 3 interventions

delivery method Social worker, behaviorist-tier 3 interventions

funding IDEA district general, state general, Title, IDEA Systems of Care/ Tier 3 SEL-school SW counseling, schoolbased SEL counseling

district and state general, Title, county BHAs, private insurance

State Assessment AIR/ ACT/ EOC exams None

Ohio Department of Education Strategic Plan Foundational Knowledge & Skills-Literacy, numeracy and technology (FK) Well-Rounded Content- Social studies, sciences, languages, arts, health, physical education, etc. (WRC) Leadership & Reasoning- Problem-solving, design thinking, creativity, information analytics (LR)

Social-Emotional Learning- Self-awareness & management, social awareness, relationship skills, responsible decision-making (SEL)

resource/ expertise gap allocation gap funding concerns

includes delivery of SEL curriculum, focused skill-building supports, and meaningful collaboration with healthcare providers. This approach would serve students, teachers, and school-based support staff to reflect Ohio’s strategic plan and, more importantly, provide students instruction and support in physical and emotional management and problem-solving. This collaborative school improvement model would acknowledge growth and achievement beyond the purely academic measures that currently exist.

Laura Schnebelen has served as principal of Burroughs Elementary, Columbus City Schools, for seven years. A school-wide focus on instructional practice has built staff capacity through professional development and professional dialogue focused on continual growth. As advocates for school-based, direct service support by healthcare professions, the staff at Burroughs continues to collaborate within the school and with service providers to meet student academic and non-academic needs. You can contact the author via email at lschnebe@columbus.k12.oh.us.

References Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Moving prevention from the fringes into the fabric. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 11(1), 7-36.

Epstein, J. L. (2005). A case study of the partnership schools comprehensive school reform (csr) model, The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 151-170.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, P.L. 114-95 U.S.C. § 1177 (2015). Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development Through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning. American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.58.6-7.466

Jimerson S.R., Burns M.K., Van Der Heyden A.M. (2007) Response to Intervention at School: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention. In: Jimerson S.R., Burns M.K., VanDerHeyden A.M. (eds) Handbook of Response to Intervention. Springer, Boston, M

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (2017). Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports [Website]. Retrieved from www.pbis.org.

United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform : a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: The Commission : [Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor],

United States, Ohio Department of Education. (2019). Each Child Our Future (pp. 1-36). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education. Retrieved March 17, 2019, from https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/About/Ohios-StrategicPlan-for-Education/Final-Strategic-Plan-Board-Approved.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US 35 fall 2019