September 2020 – Special Educator e-Journal

Table of Contents

 

• Special Education Legal Alert. By Perry A. Zirkel
• Buzz from the Hub
• Use of Visual Performance Feedback to Increase Teacher Use of Behavior-Specific Praise among High School Students with Severe Disabilities. By Michelle L. Simmons, Ed.D., Robin H. Lock, Ph.D., Janna Brendle, Ph.D., and Laurie A. Sharp, Ed.D.
• The Changing Role of the Itinerant Teacher of the Deaf: A Snapshot of Current Teacher Perceptions. By Holly F. Pedersen, Ed.D., Minot State University and Karen L. Anderson, Supporting Success for Children with Hearing Loss
• Book Reviews
  • Leading With Intention: 8 Areas for Reflection and Planning in Your PLC at Work. By Dawn M. Denton
  • If You Don’t Feed the Teachers, They Eat the Students!. By Jovana Maximilien Berrouet
  • Smart Leaders Smarter Teams: How You and Your Team Get Unstuck to Get Results. By Sarojanie Samlal
• Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET 
• Acknowledgements

­

Special Education Legal Alert

By Perry A. Zirkel

© August 2020

This month’s update concerns issues that were subject to recent court decisions of general significance: (a) transportation under a state open enrollment law, and (b) compensatory education and other relief from stay-put violation.

In an officially published decision in Osseo Area SchoolsIndependent School District No. 279 v. M.N.B. (2020), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether the IDEA requires a school district, upon accepting the application of a nonresident student with disabilities under a state open enrollment law, to provide transportation, as specified in the student’s IEP, to and from school.  Based on the parent driving the child and the open enrollment statute’s provision for transportation within district boundaries, the district only reimbursed the parent for the segment of the round trip between the school and the intersection of the district border.  Both the hearing officer and the federal district court ruled that under the IDEA the district was responsible for the cost of the full round trip between the home and the school.  The district filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit to challenge their interpretation of the IDEA.
One argument for the parent was the lower court’s conclusion that once the district accepted the student’s application, it was responsible for FAPE as documented in the IEP, which included transportation to and from school.	The Eighth Circuit relied on the Constitution’s spending clause, which the Supreme Court interpreted as requiring Congress, if it intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, to do so unambiguously.  The IDEA lacks such clear notice.
A second argument for the parent that the lower court had accepted was that the parents had filed a state complaint that resulted in a finding against the district’s blanket policy.	The Eighth Circuit observed that the state complaint decision may have been a mistaken interpretation of state law but in any event lacked any preclusive effect on the court’s IDEA interpretation.
The third argument for the parent is that in Letter to Lutjeharms (1990), OSEP supported her interpretation of the IDEA in relation to a state open enrollment law.	Pointing out that the OSEP interpretation neither addressed this state law nor the Spending Clause, the Eighth Circuit concluded that this guidance lacked not only a binding but also a persuasive effect.
Finally, the parent cited a Fifth Circuit decision that provided for transportation beyond a district’s borders under certain specified circumstances.	The Eighth Circuit made short shrift of this argument based on rather distinct factual differences between those circumstances and the open enrollment situation at issue here.
As an officially published federal appellate ruling, this decision carries considerable weight.  Nevertheless, it is not binding outside the states of the Eight Circuit and is limited to the specific provisions of the open enrollment law and IEP at issue in the case.

In Doe v. East Lyme Board of EducationIII (2020), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its third decision in litigation that dated back to the 2008-09 school year, when under the IEP the parents agreed to pay the tuition at their unilateral placement of their child with autism at a private religious school and the district agreed to pay for specified additional services, including Orton-Gillingham reading instruction, speech therapy, and PT/OT.  In Doe I (2015), the Second Circuit ruled that (a) the district’s IEP for 2009-10 was appropriate; (b) despite the district’s failure to propose an IEP in 2010–11, the parent was not entitled to reimbursement because the religious school was not appropriate; (c) the district violated stay-put by not continuing to pay for the additional services in the 2008-09 IEP, and (d) the district had to not only reimburse the parent for the out-of-pocket costs ($97K) but also, via a compensatory education award, the remainder of services that the parent was not able to arrange.  In Doe II, the Second Circuit dismissed the parents’ appeal because the district court had not yet finalized its calculations of the reimbursement and compensatory education.  After the lower court ordered the district to pay $48K plus interest in additional reimbursement and put an additional $192K in an escrow account for compensatory education, the parent challenged various aspects of this stay-put remedy.
Her first challenge was these aspects of the compensatory education award: the escrow account, the escrow agent, and the six-year time limit.	The Second Circuit summarily rejected these claims, pointing out that the parent had requested an escrow arrangement, this specific escrow agent, and the specified six-year time limit.
Second, she challenged the district court empowering the escrow agent to not only review her claims from the account but also reduce the amount if the student no longer needed the services.	The Second Circuit upheld this challenge based on the principle that compensatory education is not subject to delegation beyond the final authority of impartial adjudication.
She also challenged the district court’s order that she pay half of the escrow agent’s administrative fee.	The Second Circuit agreed, reasoning that the district was responsible for FAPE, which must be “free” to the parent.
Next, she challenged the district court’s interest calculation.	The Second Circuit roundly rejected this challenge.
Undeterred, she also challenged the original appropriateness rulings for 2009-10 and 2010-11.	The Second Circuit easily denied these challenges as decided by Doe I and unaffected by Endrew F.
Finally, she sought (a) further reimbursement, (b) expert witness fees, and (c) attorneys’ fees.	The Second Circuit respectively ruled (a) no abuse of discretion, (b) no entitlement, and (c) improper appeal.
One cannot help but wonder at the transaction costs of litigation, including 12 years of time (with the “child” now in college) and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a stay-put violation (after a complete rejection of the original FAPE reimbursement claim), and the corresponding loss of perspective of this parent (who after Doe I proceeded without legal counsel).

To top

---

Buzz from the Hub

All articles below can be accessed through the following links:

https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-august2020-issue1/

https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-july2020-issue1/

https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-june2020-issue2/

Planning for Equity and Inclusion: A Guide to Reopening Schools
COVID-19 has changed public education in dramatic ways, and the 2020–2021 school year is posing even more challenges. This short guide shares specific ways school and district leaders can prioritize equity and inclusion as they rethink their approach to public education in the COVID-19 world.

Building Engagement with Distance Learning
This resource is part of an ongoing series produced by the OSEP-funded TIES Center. It provides a framework for supporting all students, including those with significant cognitive disabilities. The series explores important considerations in providing distance learning, such as daily meetings, behavioral supports, individualizing supports for students, data collection, and embedding instruction at home.

A Guide to Equity in Remote Learning
This guide emerges from the ongoing webinar series Advancing Equity in an Era of Crisis, a collaborative effort of several professional organizations in California (e.g., California Association of African-American Superintendents and Administrators). The 63-page guide examines how California can equitably meet the needs of all students when it resumes instruction in the 2020-21 school year, whether in classrooms, remotely, or a hybrid of both. Much food for thought here, even if California isn’t where you live.

Testing for COVID-19: What’s Your State’s Plan?
The Department of Health and Human Services has posted the COVID testing plans (July through December) from all states, territories, and localities. The plans include details on responding to surges in cases and reaching vulnerable populations.

Talking to Very Young Children about Race
This 4-page resource is subtitled “It’s necessary now, more than ever.” Why? Because children see injustices on the news, at the store, on the playground, and in their classrooms. It is important for adults to explain to them what is going on in a way that makes sense based on their developmental level. These conversations need to become a pattern during the early childhood years and not a single event. Excellent, subtle suggestions are given. From the National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations.

Anti-Racism Resource Directory for Families: Resources for Multiple Grade Levels
Parents may not know where to start with discussions of race, racial justice, and anti-racism with their children. Or perhaps they’ve already had family conversations and are looking to continue the discussion or explore action. This Learning Heroes directory assists families as they navigate the many free resources that are available.

The Ultimate Parents’ Guide to Summer Activity Resources
To give parents a sense of the summertime fun can be had, the Washington Post compiled resources in 10 categories: reading, education, travel, mental wellness, music, art, physical activity, theater and dance, languages, and entertainment.

Parent Advocacy Toolkit for Equity in Use of COVID-19 Funds
NCLD and 13 partner organizations released recommendations to guide how the use of funding can prioritize equity and ensure our most vulnerable students receive the greatest support. Based on these recommendations, NCLD also created a 12-page toolkit to help parents advocate for equity as school districts develop reopening plans for the 2020-2021 school year.

COVID-19 Planning Considerations: Guidance for School Re-entry
This guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics supports education, public health, local leadership, and pediatricians collaborating with schools in creating policies for school re-entry that foster the overall health of children, adolescents, staff, and communities and are based on available evidence.

Special Report | How We Go Back to School
To reopen schools in the fall, K-12 leaders must balance three critical, often competing responsibilities: the health and safety of their people, the role their schools play in the larger community, and the effective teaching of their students. To help district and school leaders navigate these monumental decisions, Education Week lays out the big challenges ahead and some solutions in an 8-part series.

Spanish-Language Webinar on the Transition to Kindergarten Amid COVID-19
The transition into kindergarten marks a major milestone in a child’s life. The ED-funded Early Learning Network presents this 33-minute webinar specifically designed for Spanish speaking families to help families prepare their child for a successful transition into kindergarten during the pandemic.

The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse
Funded by HHS, this clearinghouse disseminates current research and innovative strategies to encourage and strengthen fathers and families. Many resources are also available in Spanish.

What’s Important to Native Youth?
Do you know? Find out in the infographic and brief developed to summarize the findings of a survey of Native youth and what they had to say. It will certainly inform your outreach to and work with youth.

Reinforcing Resilience: How Parent Centers Can Support American Indian and Alaska Native Parents
Considering the traumas that indigenous peoples have survived all these years and the current challenges they face, resilience is an essential quality to have. Here’s how Parent Centers can add value and vigor to an essence that has historically been integral in Native life.

Bouncing Back from Setbacks: A Message for American Indian and Alaska Native Youth
This brief is written directly to Native youth, as if it were a letter coming from the local Parent Center. It highlights 10 skills known to be builders of resilience in youth. Also available online in HTML.

We hope you enjoy the multicultural journey that all of the resources in Working with Native Children and Youth will take you on!

Will Your Schools Re-Open? What’s the Plan, Stan?
Johns Hopkins University has launched a new tracker that analyzes school reopening plans across the country. The tool examines whether or not each state reopening plan addresses a dozen different issues. You can also download state plans directly from the tracker. How timely, eh?

2020 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA
How well are the states and territories implementing IDEA? The 2020 determination letters will tell you. (Can you guess who received the “needs intervention” determination for the ninth year in a row?!)

Comparison Guide: Video Conferencing Tools for Your Nonprofit
As nonprofits continue to do their work remotely, the need for a solid video conferencing tool has never been greater. TechSoup created this at-a-glance guide to help nonprofits make informed decisions about choosing what’s right for their organization.

Tech Soup Courses for Free!
TechSoup has also created a free track of courses to provide information and tools as nonprofits scale up the work they do remotely, including having necessary tech tools, how to boost collaboration, and how to ensure information security.

Camp Kinda
(In English and Spanish) | Here’s a free, virtual summer camp experience designed to keep kids engaged, asking questions, and having fun even while they’re stuck at home. “Open” each weekday starting June 1 to September 1. On any given day, kids may be exploring the art of graphic novels, unlocking the mysteries of history, or jumping into the world’s craziest sports. Also available in Spanish.

How to Support Your Unique, Quirky Child
(In English and Spanish) | When your child behaves differently from others, it’s endearing—but is it OK? Read this Great Schools article to find ways to celebrate your child’s unique nature. A version in Spanish is also available: Cómo apoyar las características únicas de tu hijo.

Video | The CDC Guidance on Reopening Schools, Explained
CDC recently released guidance on reopening schools. Its recommendations, which are voluntary, give parents and teachers their first detailed glimpse of how schools might change their operations to contain COVID-19. How much these recommendations will influence schools’ operations depends on the decisions of state and local leaders. Watch Education Week’s 4-minute video for an explanation of several key points.

SAVE the DATE | Webinar on Monday, June 8th @ 3 pm EDT
Safeguarding Back to School: Principles to Guide a Healthy Opening to Classrooms During COVID-19
The transition back to school this year will be unlike any in history. How do we safely reopen? In this edWebinar, leaders of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and Brooklyn Laboratory Charter Schools will discuss key questions we must all consider as we begin the journey back to school–from the school bus ride to the dismissal bell. Register here. If you’d like to receive an email with a link to the recording afterwards, add your name to the list at: https://forms.gle/V6mgSp8n8fqxjv318

To top

---

Use of Visual Performance Feedback to Increase Teacher Use of Behavior-Specific Praise among High School Students with Severe Disabilities

Michelle L. Simmons, Ed.D.

Robin H. Lock, Ph.D.

Janna Brendle, Ph.D.

Laurie A. Sharp, Ed.D.

Abstract

Behavior-specific praise has been deemed an effective, evidence-based positive behavioral intervention and support practice for use among high school students with severe intellectual disabilities.  However, teachers are not adequately trained to use such practices with fidelity.  One way to address this shortcoming is by implementing a performance feedback approach characterized with observations and consultations that provide visual performance feedback.  Using a changing criterion research design, the present study evaluated the effect of a performance feedback approach to increase a high school teacher’s use of behavior-specific praise among students with severe disabilities.  Results showed significant increases with the teacher-participant’s use of behavior-specific praise and mixed trends with the student-participants’ exhibition of challenging and replacement behaviors.  A discussion of reported results was provided, along with implications for stakeholders in teacher preparation programs and high school contexts.  Limitations and areas for future research were also addressed.

Keywords: behavior-specific praise, severe intellectual disabilities, high school students, challenging behaviors, replacement behaviors

Introduction

Students with severe intellectual disabilities have chronic and severe deficits in both adaptive behavior and cognitive functioning that manifest during early childhood and are likely to continue for life (Handleman, 1986).  These deficits often lead to a range of challenging behaviors that significantly impede a student’s ability to exhibit appropriate social functioning in school-based settings (Lane & Wehby, 2002; Medeiros, 2015).  Challenging behaviors include noncompliance, stereotypy (e.g., intense fixations on objects or parts of objects, impulsivity, repetitive behavior patterns), and self-injury.  Without appropriate interventions, challenging behaviors can interfere with how students with severe intellectual disabilities interact with others (Carter, Sisco, Chung, & Stanton-Chapman, 2010; Matsushima & Kato, 2015; Nijs & Maes, 2014) and have an impact on the academic learning environment (Räty, Kontu, & Pirttimaa, 2016).  Thus, teachers who work among students with severe intellectual disabilities must use teaching strategies that emphasize curricular content and self-help skills, while also reducing any challenging behaviors that impede the acquisition of critical academic and functional skills (Handleman, 1986). 

Beginning in the 1960s, researchers have utilized applied behavior analysis as a systematic way to study individual functions of human behavior in an attempt to “reduce the frequency and severity of challenging behaviors and facilitate the acquisition of adaptive skills” (Dixon, Vogel, & Tarbox, 2012, p. 7).  Initial theories posited that challenging behaviors could be managed by automatic reinforcement (Vaughan & Michael, 1982; Vollmer, 1994), positive reinforcement (Carr, 1977), and negative reinforcement (Carr, Newsom, & Binkoff, 1976; Iwata, 1987).  Almost 20 years later, these theories became the foundation for functional analysis (Dixon et al., 2012), which provided a methodology to assess multiple behaviors and functions during a single experimental investigation in order to develop effective interventions for individuals who exhibit challenging behaviors (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982; Iwata et al., 2000).  To date, federal legislation has mandated that schools use functional analysis in the form of functional behavioral assessments (FBA) when a student’s behavior impedes the learning process (Drasgow, Yell, Bradley, & Shriner, 1999; Zirkel, 2017).  One of the goals of FBA is to determine the purpose of a student’s challenging behavior, identify environmental factors surrounding challenging behaviors and implement positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) to promote alternate, replacement behaviors (Farmer, Lane, Lee, Hamm, & Lambert, 2012). 

Behavior-specific praise has been deemed an effective, evidence-based PBIS practice for use among high school students (Duchaine, Jolivette, & Fredrick, 2011; Kennedy, Hirsch, Rodgers, Bruce, & Lloyd, 2017).  Teachers should deliver behavior-specific praise to immediately reinforce a student’s desired behavior with a descriptive verbal statement.  Unfortunately, teachers are not adequately prepared or trained to use PBIS practices with fidelity (Kennedy et al., 2017), particularly among high school students with severe intellectual disabilities (Bruhn et al., 2016).  Stormont and Reinke (2014) recommended using a data-based performance feedback approach to address this need.  Through this approach, a trained behaviorist serves as an instructional coach to the classroom teacher and conducts systematic, direct observations of the teacher in the classroom setting where the challenging behaviors occur.  The instructional coach collects observational data and facilitates subsequent consultations with the teacher to share visual performance feedback by reviewing a graph that depicts the classroom teacher’s use of PBIS practices. 

Available studies that examined the use of visual performance feedback to enhance teacher performance with PBIS practices primarily focused upon young children and adolescents in the elementary and middle school grade levels (Allday et al., 2012; Fabiano, Reddy, & Dudek, 2018; Gage, Grasley-Boy, & MacSuga-Gage, 2018; Gage, MacSuga-Gage, & Crews, 2017; Mesa, Lewis-Palmer, & Reinke, 2005; Reinke, Lewis-Palmer, & Merrell, 2008; Sweigart, Landrum, & Pennington, 2015).  There were a limited number of studies that specifically focused on teacher performance with PBIS practices among older adolescents in the high school grade levels (Bruhn et al., 2016; Hawkins & Heflin, 2011; Kalis, Vannest, & Parker, 2007).  The purpose of the present study was to address this research gap and evaluate the effect of visual performance feedback on the frequency of (a) behavior-specific praise statements given by a high school special education teacher and (b) challenging and replacement behaviors exhibited by high school students with severe intellectual disabilities. 

Methods

Participants

Information provided about participants relates to the time that the present study was conducted.  There was one teacher-participant, Ms. George (all names are pseudonyms).  Ms. George was a high school special education math and science life skills teacher with more than 10 years of teaching experiences in special education settings.  There were also three student-participants who were high school students that met IDEA eligibility criteria for a severe intellectual disability.  Kara was a Caucasian female classified as a sophomore-level student, Chris was a Caucasian male classified as a junior-level student, and Cody was a Caucasian male classified as a senior-level student.  The identified adaptive behavior deficits for Kara, Chris, and Cody were of such significance that their access to the general education instructional environment and daily functioning were severely limited.  Therefore, Kara, Chris, and Cody received instruction for more than 80% of the school day in a self-contained life skills classroom, as well as frequent monitoring and supervision during meal times, transition periods, and toileting. 

Role of Researchers

Two individuals collected data for the present study.  Both of these individuals had previously received specialized training in behavior management techniques.  The first individual was the primary researcher for the present study (i.e., the first author) and was a direct observer who completed study session observations, recorded data measurements, facilitated consultations with the teacher-participant, and performed all data analyses.  The second individual was a Licensed Specialist in School Psychology (LSSP) employed by the school district and assigned to the high school campus where the present study was conducted.  The second individual served as an inter-observer who completed observations and recorded data measurements with the primary researcher during the intervention phase.  Other members of the research team (i.e., the second, third, and fourth authors) contributed expertise once data analyses were completed.

Setting

The present study was conducted in a public high school located in a rural area of the South Central United States that served students in grades 9-12.  The high school had a student enrollment of approximately 1,500 students who resided in several surrounding rural communities.  The high school used a self-contained model for the life skills classroom, which was led by a state-certified special education teacher.  One teaching assistant was also assigned to the life skills classroom and provided the teacher and students with additional support during the school day. 

At any given time throughout the school day, there were typically six to eight students in the life skills classroom.  The life skills classroom used a paired classroom seating arrangement with two individual student desks facing one another.  A large electronic display was affixed to a wall at the front of the classroom.  For the majority of observed instructional delivery, Ms. George used the electronic display, along with an iPad.  Additionally, Ms. George was unaware of who the student-participants were and knew them as Student 1 (i.e., Kara), Student 2 (i.e., Chris), and Student 3 (i.e., Cody).

Research Design

The present study employed a changing criterion research design.  This research design is a variant of the multiple-baseline research design and characterized by two major phases (Hartmann & Hall, 1976).  The first phase, the baseline phase, includes initial observations for a single target behavior.  The second phase, the intervention phase, implements a treatment for the target behavior in a series of sub-phases.  During the first intervention sub-phase, an interim criterion for desired level of performance is established (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).  Once the interim criterion is achieved, it is gradually increased to establish a functional relationship between behaviors and the treatment continues.  Successive intervention sub-phases continue incremental criterion progression and intervention delivery throughout the duration of the study.

The goal of the present study was to increase Ms. George’s use of behavior-specific praise (i.e., the independent variable) with challenging and replacement behaviors (i.e., the dependent variables) exhibited among Kara, Chris, and Cody.  To achieve this goal, the treatment delivery included weekly visual performance feedback consultations between the teacher-participant and primary researcher after each intervention sub-phase.  Following baseline phase observations, interim criterion calculations for intervention sub-phases were made using frequency counts of the independent variable.  It was determined that the mean rate of behavior-specific praise for each intervention sub-phase must be greater than or equal to the mean of the baseline phase plus the mean of the preceding intervention sub-phase.

Materials

An event recording data collection sheet was used to record the frequency of independent and dependent variables during intervention sub-phases for Kara, Chris, and Cody (Alberto & Troutman, 2009).  The event recording data collection sheet was a table consisting of four blank rows and five columns with the following labels: Date of Observation, Time Start, Time Stop, Notation of Occurrence, and Total Frequency of Occurrence.  From this data, graphic displays were created to visually depict trends in Ms. George’s levels of delivery of behavior-specific praise during baseline and intervention sub-phase observations for Kara, Chris, and Cody (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).

Procedure

The present study was conducted during a six-week time frame that implemented procedures for five different conditions that occurred during the baseline and intervention phases.  These conditions were: (1) baseline phase observations, (2) teacher consultations, (3) intervention sub-phase observations, (4) inter-observer agreement checks, and (5) social validity questionnaires.  Following is a detailed description of the specific procedures and conditions for each phase. 

Baseline phase.  Baseline phase observations were conducted during the first week to determine the frequency of behavior-specific praise offered by Ms. George, as well as the frequency of challenging and replacement behaviors exhibited by Kara, Chris, and Cody.  For each student-participant, the primary researcher completed three separate 20-minute observation sessions and used event recording data sheets to notate the frequency of occurrence of independent and dependent variables.  An audio recording of each baseline observation session was made, and the primary researcher kept anecdotal notes in a journal.  During baseline phase observation sessions, no changes were made to the environment and no treatment was applied.

Intervention phase.  On the Monday of the second week, the primary researcher conducted a 20-minute initial teacher consultation with Ms. George to provide visual performance feedback.  Visual performance feedback consisted of the following instructional coaching strategies. The primary researcher noted and reinforced specific examples of Ms. George’s behavior specific praise delivery using graphic displays.  The primary researcher also identified and discussed occurrences when Ms. George used non-specific praise, reprimands, or other non-PBIS responses toward student behaviors.  During these occurrences, the primary researcher encouraged Ms. George to provide examples of PBIS strategies that could have been used with students instead of the aforelisted behavioral approaches.  In addition, the primary researcher delivered a brief training on behavior-specific praise to Ms. George.  This training included an overview of evidence-based practices, examples of behavior-specific statements (see Table 1), and opportunities for Ms. George to practice using behavior-specific praise.  At the conclusion of the initial teacher consultation, the primary researcher communicated the mean rate of behavior-specific praise from baseline observation sessions for Kara, Chris, and Cody to Ms. George.

Table 1

Examples of Behavior-specific Praise Statements

Observed Behavior	Behavior-specific Praise Statements
Kara verbally responds to a question posed during class.	“Way to go, Kara!  Thank you for giving an answer to that question.”
Cody gets his blue binder out to begin an assignment.	“Good job!  Thank you for getting your binder out, Cody!”
Chris remains in his seat and raises his hand to get the teacher’s attention.	“I like that you raised your hand to get my attention, Chris.”
Chris sits quietly while the teacher gives instructions.	“Chris, I noticed you listened while I was giving instructions for that assignment.  Well done!”
Cody refrains from hand movements or gestures that create inappropriate noise.	“Wow, thank you for keeping your hands quiet, Cody!  You made it easy for your classmates and me to hear!”
Kara states, “Ms. George” to request help from the teacher.	“Thank you, Kara, for using my name to get my attention.  That was helpful!”

Following the initial teacher consultation, the primary researcher and inter-observer conducted joint intervention sub-phase observations of Kara for three weeks and Chris and Cody for five weeks.  Each week, the primary researcher and inter-observer conducted three 20-minute observation sessions of each student-participant simultaneously, yet independently of one another.  The primary researcher and inter-observer used event recording data sheets to record data, kept anecdotal notes in a journal, and made audio recordings of each observation session.  After each observation session, inter-observer agreement checks were made by calculating a Cohen’s Kappa statistic (Bryington, Palmer, & Watkins, 2002).  For each variable, the number of agreements was divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements.  Resulting Kappa values were interpreted as poor (below 0.40), fair (between 0.40 and 0.59), good (between 0.60 and 0.74), and excellent (between 0.75 and 1.00).  As shown in Table 2, the majority of Kappa values reflected good inter-observer agreement with independent and dependent variables (K = 0.67), although there were two instances that showed poor inter-observer agreement (K = 0.33).

Table 2

Kappa Values for Inter-Observer Agreement Checks

	Behavior-specific Praise	Challenging Behaviors	Replacement Behaviors
Kara	.67	.33	.67
Chris	.67	.67	.67
Cody	.67	.67	.33

Every Monday, the primary researcher held a 20-minute teacher consultation with Ms. George regarding the previous week of intervention sub-phase observations.  During teacher consultations, the primary researcher provided visual performance feedback and facilitated dialogue concerning Ms. George’s use of behavior-specific praise with Kara, Chris, and Cody.  The primary researcher concluded each teacher consultation by sharing information related to expected levels of behavior-specific praise for the forthcoming week.  Once intervention sub-phase observations concluded, Ms. George completed separate social validity questionnaires for Kara, Cody, and Chris.  The social validity questionnaire consisted of 13 Likert-type statements for which Ms. George used a five-point scale (i.e., 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Uncertain, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree) to rate her personal viewpoints toward behavior-specific praise (see Figure 1).

Although Ms. George completed a social validity questionnaire for Kara, Chris, and Cody separately, her ratings for each statement were identical.  Ms. George gave the highest rating (i.e., Strongly Agree) to every questionnaire statement except Statement 4 and Statement 8 (see Figure 1).  For these two questionnaire statements, Ms. George gave the second-highest rating (i.e., Agree). 

Figure 1.Likert-type statements included on social validity questionnaire.

Results

Analyses of baseline phase observations revealed a variety of challenging behaviors exhibited by Kara, Chris, and Cody.  Kara frequently uttered inappropriate words or sounds and used gestures to gain the attention of the teacher or a peer.  Inappropriate utterances included giggling, making kissing noises, excessive audible yawning, and yelling off-topic words.  Kara would also touch Ms. George’s arm, wave a piece of paper in the air, or stand up while Ms. George was talking.  Chris often yelled inappropriately, repeated or mimicked Ms. George’s words, or shouted off-topic words or phrases.  Chris would also create loud sounds using random objects and by slamming his hands on surfaces, such as desktops and the floor.  Cody regularly uttered inappropriate words or sounds, snorted, yelled off-topic responses out of turn, or used random objects to create drumming sounds.  Cody would also continually enter Ms. George’s personal space, lay his head on her shoulders or arms, or wave objects in her face. 

Analyses of baseline observations for Ms. George revealed that she typically responded to challenging behaviors by avoiding eye contact with the student, ignoring the behavior, issuing a verbal correction or reprimand, stating the student’s name, or taking away sound-making objects.  There were two occurrences where Ms. George provided verbal praise for replacement behaviors.  However, the praise she provided was generic and not specific to the desired behavior (i.e., “good job,” “thank you”).

Independent Variable Data

The number of behavior-specific praise statements given by Ms. George to Kara, Chris, and Cody are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively.  With Kara, the mean rate of behavior-specific praise during the baseline phase was 0.3 and had increased to 1.6 after the first intervention sub-phase (see Figure 2).  This increasing trend continued through the second (2.0) and third (3.0) intervention sub-phases and exceeded the established interim criterion for both sub-phases (1.9 and 2.3, respectively).

Figure 2. Number of behavior-specific praise statements given by Ms. George to Kara

With Chris, the mean rate of behavior-specific praise during the baseline phase was zero and increased to 3.6 after the first intervention sub-phase (see Figure 3).  During the second intervention sub-phase, the mean rate of behavior-specific praise decreased to 1.9 and failed to meet the established interim criterion of 3.6.  The mean of behavior-specific praise continued to be calculated for subsequent sub-phase observations during the next three weeks and reflected the same trend.  

Figure 3. Number of behavior-specific praise statements given by Ms. George to Chris

With Cody, the mean rate of behavior-specific praise during the baseline phase was 0.3 and increased to 2.6 after the first intervention sub-phase (see Figure 4).  During the second intervention sub-phase, the mean rate of behavior-specific praise decreased to 2.5 and failed to meet the established interim criterion of 2.9.  Similar to Chris, the mean rate of behavior-specific praise given to Cody continued to be calculated for subsequent sub-phase observations during the next three weeks and reflected the same trend.    

Dependent Variable Data

The number of challenging and replacement behaviors exhibited by Kara, Chris, and Cody are shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7, respectively.  With Kara, the mean rates for challenging behaviors was 2.0 and zero for replacement behaviors during the baseline phase (see Figure 5).  During the first intervention sub-phase, there were increases in the mean rates of Kara’s challenging (4.7) and replacement (3.0) behaviors.  However, this trend was reversed during the second intervention sub-phase (challenging behaviors = 2.6, replacement behaviors = 1.3).  During the third intervention sub-phase, the mean rate of Kara’s challenging behaviors remained the same, yet increased dramatically for her replacement behaviors (5.3). 

Figure 5. Number of challenging and replacement behaviors exhibited by Kara

With Chris, the mean rates for challenging behaviors was 4.6 and zero for replacement behaviors during the baseline phase (see Figure 6).  The mean rates for Chris’s challenging behaviors decreased to 3.3 during the first intervention sub-phase and then increased back to 4.6 during the second intervention sub-phase.  Data also revealed that Chris’s replacement behaviors increased to 2.3 during the first intervention sub-phase with no change during the second intervention sub-phase.

With Cody, the mean rates for challenging behaviors was 4.6 and 0.3 for replacement behaviors during the baseline phase (see Figure 7).  The mean rates for Cody’s challenging behaviors decreased to 3.6 during the first intervention sub-phase and then increased back to 4.2 during the second intervention sub-phase.  Data also revealed that Cody’s replacement behaviors increased to 1.6 during the first intervention sub-phase and then decreased slightly to 1.3 during the second intervention sub-phase.

Figure 6. Number of challenging and replacement behaviors exhibited by Chris

Figure 7. Number of challenging and replacement behaviors exhibited by Cody

             

Limitations and Areas for Future Research

There were three major limitations in the present study that impact generalizability of reported results.  First, extraneous variables occurred during observation sessions that were beyond the control of the primary researcher.  All observation sessions were conducted in a high school life skills classroom where other students and school personnel were present.  As a result, there may have been distractions that impacted the teacher’s use of behavior-specific praise or factors that provoked challenging behaviors among students.  Future studies should attempt to create a more controlled classroom setting to reduce distractions and instigating factors as much as possible. 

Second, the teacher-participant had several years of professional teaching experiences among students with disabilities.  Additionally, the three student-participants were individuals with severe intellectual disabilities who each exhibited individualized challenging behaviors.  Future studies should include teacher-participants with varying professional teaching experiences so that teachers in different teaching assignments (e.g., special education classrooms, content area classrooms) and at various stages of their teaching career may be evaluated.  Future studies should also involve a greater number of student-participants with other types of disabilities who exhibit different forms, frequencies, and intensities of challenging behaviors.   

Lastly, the present study used inter-observer agreement checks to establish reliability with intervention sub-phase observations.  For each observation session, Kappa values were calculated and demonstrated good inter-observer agreement with all but two observation sessions.  Future studies should incorporate ways to improve the degree to which multiple observers conduct consistent interpretations of events during the same observation session.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Among students with severe intellectual disabilities teachers can use PBIS practices, such as behavior-specific praise, to reduce the occurrence of challenging behaviors and promote alternate, replacement behaviors (Farmer et al., 2012).  Since teachers are not adequately prepared or trained to use PBIS practices with fidelity (Kennedy et al., 2017), Stormont and Reinke (2014) recommended using a data-based performance feedback approach characterized with observations and consultations to provide teachers with visual performance feedback.  The goal of the present study was to address an under-researched area and evaluate the effect of visual performance feedback on the frequency of (a) behavior-specific praise statements given by a high school special education teacher and (b) challenging and replacement behaviors exhibited by high school students with severe intellectual disabilities.

Results in the present study have shown that use of a data-based performance feedback approach enabled Ms. George to significantly increase the frequency of behavior-specific praise given to Kara, Chris, and Cody.  By providing Ms. George with initial training and weekly consultations that included visual performance feedback, she was empowered to implement behavior-specific praise with fidelity.  Results also revealed decreases in challenging behaviors and increases in replacement behaviors exhibited by student participants, especially with Kara.  Reducing challenging behaviors in high school students with severe intellectual disabilities can be problematic because their behaviors have become deeply ingrained over time (Bruhn et al., 2016).  This was evident in findings reported for Chris and Cody after the first intervention sub-phase.  Despite this phenomenon, findings from the social validity questionnaire showed that Ms. George viewed behavior-specific praise as an effective PBIS practice that increased access to instructional opportunities for Kara, Cody, and Chris.  Furthermore, Ms. George indicated that she planned to continue using behavior-specific praise with high school students who have severe intellectual disabilities.

Results from the present study have implications for stakeholders in teacher preparation programs and high school contexts.  High school teachers who work among students with severe intellectual disabilities must know how to address challenging behaviors appropriately.  Therefore, preservice and practicing teachers must learn how to conduct FBAs to determine the function of challenging behaviors and create function-based behavior improvement plans that implement PBIS practices as interventions (Erbas, Tekin-Iftar, & Yucesoy, 2006; Westing, 2015).  Trainings should include frequent opportunities to observe experienced teachers and practice related skills in authentic high school settings (Mastropieri, 2001) using a visual performance feedback approach (Jenkins, Floress, & Reinke, 2015; Reddy, Dudek, & Lekwa, 2017; Stormont & Reinke, 2014).  While implementing a data-based performance feedback approach, stakeholders in teacher preparation programs and high school contexts may also consider different variations with procedures.  For example, video self-modeling enables teachers to view themselves performing PBIS practices successfully (Hawkins & Heflin, 2011).  Additionally, teachers may be provided with performance feedback through email (Allday et al., 2012; Gage et al., 2018) or via real-time means using wireless technology devices (Sweigart et al., 2015).    

References

Alberto, P. A. & Troutman, A. C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Allday, R. A., Hinkson-Lee, K., Hudson, T., Neilsen-Gatti, S., Kleinke, A., & Russel, C. S. (2012). Training general educators to increase behavior-specific praise: Effects on students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 37(2), 87-98. doi:10.1177/019874291203700203

Bruhn, A. L., Kaldenberg, E., Bappe, K. T., Brandsmeier, B., Rila, A., Lanphier, L., . . .  Slater, A. (2016). Examining the effects of functional assessment-based interventions with high school students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(2), 106-116. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2015.1030721

Bryington, A. A., Palmer, D. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2002). The estimation of interobserver agreement in behavioral assessment. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(3), 323-328. doi:10.1037/h0099978

Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 800-816. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.4.800

Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1976). Stimulus control of self-destructive behavior in a psychotic child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4(2), 139-153. doi:10.1007/BF00916518

Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Chung, Y., & Stanton-Chapman, T. L. (2010). Peer interactions of students with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: A map of the intervention literature. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35(3/4), 63–79. doi:10.2511/rpsd.35.3-4.63

Dixon, D. R., Vogel, T., & Tarbox, J. (2012). A brief history of functional analysis and applied behavior analysis. In J. L. Matson (Ed.), Functional assessment for challenging behaviors (pp. 3-24). New York, NY: Springer.

Drasgow, E., Yell, M. L., Bradley, R., & Shriner, J. G. (1999). The IDEA amendments of 1997: A school-wide model for conducting functional behavioral assessments and developing behavior intervention plans. Education and Treatment of Children, 22(3), 244–266. Retrieved from www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net

Duchaine, E. L., Jolivette, K., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). The effect of teacher coaching with performance feedback on behavior-specific praise in inclusion classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(2), 209-227. doi:10.1353/etc.2011.0009

Erbas, D., Tekin-Iftar, E., & Yucesoy, S. (2006). Teaching special education teachers how to conduct functional analysis in natural settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(1), 28-36. Retrieved from daddcec.org/Publications/ETADDJournal.aspx

Fabiano, G. A., Reddy, L. A., & Dudek, C. M. (2018). Teacher coaching supported by formative assessment for improving classroom practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 293-304. doi:10.1037/spq0000223

Farmer, T. W., Lane, K. L., Lee, D. L., Hamm, J. V., & Lambert, K. (2012). The social functions of anti-social behavior: Considerations for school violence prevention strategies for students with disabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 37(3), 149-162. doi:10.1177/019874291203700303

Gage, N. A., Grasley-Boy, N. M., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2018). Professional development to increase teacher behavior-specific praise: A single-case design replication. Psychology in the Schools, 55(3), 264-277. doi:10.1002/pits.22106

Gage, N. A., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Crews, E. (2017). Increasing teachers’ use of behavior-specific praise during a multitiered system for professional development. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(4), 239-251. doi:10.1177/1098300717693568

Handleman, J. S. (1986). Severe developmental disabilities: Defining the term. Education and Treatment of Children, 9(2), 153-167. Retrieved from www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net

Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(2), 147-185. doi:10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147

Hartmann, D. P., & Hall, R. V. (1976). The changing criterion design. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9(4), 527-532. doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9-527

Hawkins, S. M., & Heflin, L. J. (2011). Increasing secondary teachers’ behavior-specific praise using a video self-modeling and visual performance feedback intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(2), 97-108. doi:10.1177/1098300709358110

Iwata, B. A. (1987). Negative reinforcement in applied behavior analysis: An emerging technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20(4), 361-378. doi:10.1901/jaba.1987.20-361

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2(1), 3-20. doi:10.1016/0270-4684(82)90003-9

Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., . . . Worsdell, A. S. (2000). Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(2), 181-194. doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-181

Jenkins, L. N., Floress, M. T. & Reinke, W. (2015). Rates and types of teacher praise: A review and future directions. Psychology in the Schools, 52(5), 463-476. doi:10.1002/pits.21835

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.   

Kalis, T. M., Vannest, K. J., & Parker, R. (2007). Praise counts: Using self-monitoring to increase effective teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 20–27. doi:10.3200/PSFL.51.3.20-27

Kennedy, M. J., Hirsch, S. E., Rodgers, W. J., Bruce, A., Lloyd, J. W. (2017). Supporting high school teachers’ implementation of evidence-based classroom management practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 47-57. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.009

Lane, K. L., & Wehby, J. (2002). Addressing antisocial behavior in the schools: A call for action. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 6, 4-9. Retrieved from rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/

Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full of half empty? Challenges encountered by first-year special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 66-74. doi:10.1177/002246690103500201

Matsushima, K., & Kato, T. (2015). Research on positive indicators for teacher-child relationship in children with intellectual disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 22(4), 206–216. doi:10.1002/oti.1400

Medeiros, K. (2015). Behavioral interventions for individuals with intellectual disabilities exhibiting automatically-reinforced challenging behavior: Stereotypy and self-injury. Journal of Psychological Abnormalities in Children, 4(3), 1-8. doi:10.4172/2329-9525.1000141

Mesa, J., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Reinke, W. (2005). Providing teachers with performance feedback on praise to reduce student problem behavior. Beyond Behavior, 15(1), 3–7. Retrieved from journals.sagepub.com/home/bbx

Nijs, S., & Maes, B. (2014). Social peer interactions in persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: A literature review. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(1), 153-165. Retrieved from daddcec.org/Publications/ETADDJournal.aspx

Räty, L. M. O., Kontu, E. K., & Pirttimaa, R. A. (2016). Teaching children with intellectual disabilities: Analysis of research-based recommendations. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 318-336. doi:10.5539/jel.v5n2p318

Reddy, L. A., Dudek, C. M., & Lekwa, A. (2017). Classroom strategies coaching model: Integration of formative assessment and instructional coaching. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 46-55. doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1241944

Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Merrell, K. (2008). The classroom check-up: A classwide teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 315–332. Retrieved from naspjournals.org

Stormont, M., & Reinke, W. M. (2014). Providing performance feedback for teachers to increase treatment fidelity. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(4), 219-224. doi:10.1177/1053451213509487

Sweigart, C. A., Landrum, T. J., & Pennington, R. C. (2015). The effect of real-time visual performance feedback on teacher feedback: A preliminary investigation. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(4), 429–450. doi:10.1353/etc.2015.0024

Vaughan, M. E., & Michael, J. L. (1982). Automatic reinforcement: An important but ignored concept. Behaviorism, 10(2), 217-228. doi:10.2307/27759007

Vollmer, T. R. (1994). The concept of automatic reinforcement: Implication for behavioral research in developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15(3), 187-207. doi:10.1016/0891-4222(94)90011-6

Westing, D. L. (2015). Evidence-based practices for improving challenging behaviors of students with severe disabilities (Document No. IC-14). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Zirkel, P. A. (2017). An update of judicial rulings specific to FBAs or BIPs under the IDEA and corollary state laws. The Journal of Special Education, 51(1), 50-56. doi:10.1177/0022466917693386

About the Authors

Michelle Simmons. Ed.D., is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at West Texas A&M University. Dr. Simmons’ university responsibilities include program coordinator, advisor and instructor in the educational diagnostician, special education teacher preparation and special education graduate programs. Dr. Simmons has taught as a special educator at the secondary level both in special and general education settings. In addition to her instructional experience, Dr. Simmons served as an educational diagnostician at the elementary and secondary levels in urban and rural education settings. Dr. Simmons’ research focuses on best practice in assessment and evaluation, multicultural evaluation and instruction for students with disabilities, university-based special educator preparation programs, and behavior management strategies specific to students with intellectual disabilities.

Robin H. Lock, Ph.D., is the interim dean of the College of Education at Texas Tech University and is a professor in the college’s special education program. Her experiences building external partnerships and establishing The Burkhart Center for Autism Education and Research have led Dr. Lock is principal investigator for East Lubbock Promise Neighborhood (ELPN), a multi-institutional community engagement project funded by a $25 million U.S. Department of Education grant.  In addition, Dr. Lock has garnered over $5 million in external funding – including private donations, foundation grants, state grants and federal funding – for work with individuals with disabilities, young people in the foster care system and other community engagement initiatives.  Her research interests revolve around postsecondary educational opportunities for students with disabilities as well as those being served in the foster care system. She has over 35 publications, including a book, Assessing Students with Special Needs to Produce Quality Outcomes.

Janna Brendle, Ph.D., is an associate professor of special education in the College of Education at Texas Tech University.  Dr. Brendle’s university responsibilities include program coordinator, advisor and instructor in the educational diagnostician, special education teacher preparation and special education doctoral programs.  Dr. Brendle’s research focuses on high incidence disabilities and instructional strategies and intervention for students with disabilities.

Laurie A. Sharp, Ed.D., is the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Studies for First and Second Year Experience and Associate Professor at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas.  Dr. Sharp promotes student success among adult learners, actively participates in professional service, and maintains an extensive scholarship record.

To top

---

Book Review: Leading With Intention: 8 Areas for Reflection and Planning in Your PLC at Work

By Dawn M. Denton

“Our great desire is to support, coach, and encourage others and share what we have learned” (Spiller & Power, 2019, p. v). The authors of, Leading With Intention: 8 Areas for Reflection and Planning in Your PLC at Work, do exactly that in this work about implementing Professional Learning Communities in schools.

Jeanne Spiller and Karen Power have been employed as teachers, administrators and superintendents, and share their knowledge and experience with leaders who wish to improve their schools. Their passion for effective leadership is evident throughout the book. Their belief in the use of PLC as the best means for improving schools is supported by examples, applicable ideas and reproducible tools to assist readers in creating personalized goals and plans for implementation.

Main Themes

As the subtitle suggests, the authors present eight areas of reflection and planning that leaders should focus on when implementing PLC in their schools. The areas include:

• Achieving focus and staying intentional- This is sometimes difficult, but these are key features of effective leadership. Avoiding distractions and the implementation of too many initiatives are pitfalls one must avoid.
• Establishing and maintaining organization- This is a must if learning is to be the focus. Without it, confusion, fear and anger will derail the efforts of a well-intentioned leader. Organization begins with clear expectations of staff and students.
• Building shared leadership- Principals who implement the PLC model ensure shared ownership of school improvement.
• Using evidence for decision making and action- Many leaders analyze data but fail to use it when planning next steps. Leaders should use data to create SMART goals (specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented and time bound).
• Prioritizing the student- This is achieved by maintaining high expectations of all students and staff. Student-centered decision making is expected, as opposed to appeasement and wavering positions. This leads to an equitable learning environment.
• Leading instruction- This tenant of PLC involves promoting collaboration for the purpose of improving instruction. Improved instruction is directly related to improved student learning.
• Fostering communication- School leaders develop their own communication skills in addition to building the capacity of their staff to communicate effectively. Understanding that communication is not a one-way street, leaders must develop their ability to listen as well as to respond. Work in this area includes increasing focus, understanding and clarity.
• Developing community and relationships with parents- These are crucial components of leadership success. When people understand why they are being asked to do something (e.g. a shared vision), they are more likely to buy into what they are being asked to do (e.g. policies, initiatives, etc.).

Key Quotes

The following quotations from, Leading With Intention: 8 Areas for Reflection and Planning in Your PLC at Work (Spiller & Power, 2019) reflect the authors’ views about the importance of implementing the PLC model within schools.

“Yes, the demands on school leaders are extraordinarily challenging, but like Peter Parker, when you use your power and responsibility for the greater good, great things can happen for students.” (p. 8). This quote exemplifies the authors’ beliefs that students should be the first priority of every school, one of the key tenants of PLC implementation.

“We seek to build common understanding of the importance of your ability to stay focused and intentional with daily practices in creating the school you want to lead.” (p. 10) This statement refers to the first area of reflection. It challenges leaders to connect ideas with action for school improvement.

“Aspects of teaching and learning in which educators are empowered to make important decisions are said to be loose. Elements of the PLC process that are tight are non-negotiables; everyone in the school is required to adhere to those elements.” (p. 18). This quote speaks to the coherent nature of PLCs.

“In our experience, when leaders create a culture with very clear expectations and students and staff understand and take ownership of their learning and actions, there are higher levels of engagement and motivation.” (p. 37) Here, the authors strengthen their case for using the PLC model to improve schools.

“The growing demands on school leaders that require them to respond to multiple complex issues at any given moment require a shift from a singular-leader model to a shared- or distributed-leadership model.” (p. 59) This statement provides a rationale for the use of the PLC model.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Spiller and Power not only promote ideas that sound good on paper, but they support those ideas by sharing real-world experiences from their own careers.  Additionally, their illustrative, hypothetical scenarios are relatable and relevant to today’s principals.

The authors also provide actionable steps in each section to support leaders in developing  their PLCs. This leaves little room for misinterpretation and the need to reinvent the wheel. They also provide graphic organizers and charts to assist principals in creating personalized goals and plans for implementation.

Frequent reflection points throughout the work encourage administrators to stop and consider their own practices and how the tenants of PLC could be implemented to improve conditions on their own campuses.

While the work of Spiller and Power includes many important themes, one topic noticeably absent is that of school safety. A seasoned administrator would read this with the understanding that the tenants of PLC would lead to safe school environments in general, but a mention of school safety would make for a more comprehensive work. With the rise in school violence and bullying, it would be helpful to inexperienced leaders to have more examples of how PLC implementation could decrease and prevent such occurrences.

Comparison to Fullan’s Theories on Leadership

Throughout the guide, Spiller and Power refer to the importance of simultaneously providing loose and tight leadership. This idea of leaving room for creativity while enforcing non-negotiable rules and requirements is similar to Fullan’s suggestion to let go of some controls while reigning in others to produce coherence (Fullan, 2001).

The authors’ ideas further align with Fullan’s, as evidenced by citations of his work that mention the importance of maintaining a focus on a few goals and for having high expectations of all stakeholders.

One last comparison to Fullan’s theory reflects his and the authors’ belief that a principal’s role is to model learning while shaping conditions for others to learn for continuous improvement.

Leading With Intention: 8 Areas for Reflection and Planning in Your PLC at Work is recommended for both new and seasoned administrators who wish to develop their leadership skills by implementing the PLC model for school improvement with fidelity.

References

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.

Spiller, J., & Power, K. (2019). Leading with intention: 8 areas for reflection and planning in your PLC at work. Bloomington, IN, IN: Solution Tree Press.

To top

---

---

Book Review: Smart Leaders Smarter Teams: How You and Your Team Get Unstuck to Get Results

By Sarojanie Samlal

Abstract

The mindset of the leader is key to the success of the team; this is the jist of what Roger Schwarz explains in his book, Smart Leaders Smarter Teams: How You and Your Team Get Unstuck to Get Results. Schwarz is a recognized thought leader in team leadership and improving team effectiveness.  He achieves this by helping leaders change from a unilateral control mindset to a mutual learning mindset. This approach results in higher quality decisions, shorter implementation time, and a greater commitment and trust from team members. Schwarz has found that while 98% of leaders “espouse openness, cooperation and the sharing of accountability between peer members of a team” their actions “seem to be guided by the opposite mindset” (Schwarz, 2016, p. 6).

Since team members should all be viewed as leaders, the mutual learning mindset can be applied to a singular leader as well as a team. Schwarz dedicates an entire chapter to dealing with common team challenges by using the mutual learning approach and drives home his message that all leaders must change from a unilateral control mindset to a mutual learning mindset in order to improve results.  

Main Themes

The Unilateral Control Mindset

Mindset is a set of core values and assumptions from which individuals and groups operate. Traditionally, when people think of a leader they picture the person who has the greatest authority. Without consciously being aware of it, they equate leadership with the right to make all decisions for the group. Schwarz (2013) refers to this perception as the “one leader in the room” (p.3). Leaders in this situation are omnipotent and omnipresent, but are not as effective as they want to be. These leaders believe that it is their job to hold each team member accountable. They attempt to prevent friction between team members by acting as the go-between and cutting off a necessary communication link. Unilateral leaders believe that their actions are for the good of the team. However, this behavior actually undermines the power of the team since members are not accountable to each other. The decision making process involves these leaders convincing their teams of the best approach to issues, since they unconsciously believe that it is the most efficient option and they know what is best for the group. Team members go along with what the leader says because they have been conditioned to assume that is the formal leader’s job; it is what he gets paid to do.

The Mutual Learning Mindset

With the mutual learning mindset, it is still the leader’s ultimate responsibility for how decisions are made, but the control is spread around the room. Team leadership becomes the ability to share responsibility for the team’s functioning. Any member of the team has the ability to move the team forward at any time and everyone’s opinion and insight is valued, since the leadership role is not rigid as with unilateral control. Since all team members have a voice, they must also be accountable to each other. When a team operates from a mutual learning mindset the whole team works from the same guiding ideas. The team shares a common purpose and the same values. Each member’s input and actions contribute to the success of the whole team.

Core Values and Assumptions Generate Mutual Learning Behaviors

The first two core values of the mutual learning mindset are transparency, or the sharing of all relevant information, which when paired with curiosity, or learning what others know, think, and feel, help create a pool of understanding between the leader and the team. These in turn, lead to the third core value of the ability of each team member to make informed choices. Although the formal leader still maintains the responsibility of the final decision, there is greater consensus and commitment to these choices. When people make an informed choice they are also accountable for the choices made. This is the fourth core value. Accountability directly affects team member relationships. This is the fifth core value of compassion: the glue that holds all five core values together. Without a leader’s compassion for their team or members compassion for each other, none of the previously mentioned attributes could apply.

The core values of the mutual learning mindset help leaders operate from five basic assumptions. The mutual learning assumptions are:

• I have information and so do others
• Each of us sees things others don’t
• Differences are opportunities for learning
• People may disagree with me and still have pure motives
• I may be contributing to the problem.

 These open-minded views generate mutual learning behaviors.

Mutual Learning Behaviors

Successfully changing one’s mindset leads to the behaviors that promote productivity. Having a mutual learning mindset means that leaders share relevant information about a situation and find out what others are thinking. Greater trust allows members to test assumptions that are being made in order to develop solutions. Since members view the situation with the goal in mind, interests, not positions are addressed and what might have been undiscussable issues can be openly raised. The team is therefore able to jointly design their course of action; which in turn leads to better overall performance, working relationships, and individual well-being.

Dealing with Common Challenges

Misunderstandings and miscommunication are key factors that can weaken team relationships; using the mutual learning mindset can prevent these circumstances. Team meetings are not a battleground where the leader presents the problem and the solution. When leaders approach meetings by being transparent, genuine, and compassionate, everyone is fully informed. Each member has a chance to talk and be heard. Each member’s opinion is validated because the team goal is the same. This absolutely cannot be achieved if key information is withheld. A lack of transparency leads to breakdowns in communication and relationships within the team: the team ends up stuck.

Although it may seem daunting, negative body language must be confronted with curiosity and not simply ignored. Rolling eyes and knowing looks by team members may lead to incorrect assumptions and weaken the team relationship. Instead, leaders should test their inference by naming the behavior and the person who is doing it. They should calmly share what they are inferring from the behavior and ask the people involved if they are willing to share their thinking. Many leaders hesitate to take this approach for fear of creating conflict or embarrassing and further alienating team members. However, this approach, when done respectfully and with a mindset of curiosity, allows for team members to express their frustrations. Team members practice transparency and goals are more easily accomplished.

Another challenge faced by leaders involves giving feedback. Schwarz advises that when using the mutual learning mindset, feedback should be a joint venture; it is not criticism sandwiched between two compliments. Leaders need to approach feedback being open to the idea that the recipient can explain their reasoning, and the leader’s mind can be changed by this reasoning. It is human nature to become defensive if criticized, however this does not lead to a positive outcome. As the leader, curiosity should rule. Specific examples should be used and names should not be avoided and leaders should always get feedback on how they are giving feedback.

A huge breakdown in trust can occur when team members talk behind each other’s backs. This can be in the form of team members complaining to each other, or going to the team leader to complain about an absent individual. It is however a circumstance that cannot be avoided. The trick is using the mutual learning mindset: do not attack or allow the absent person to be attacked. If the source of the disagreement is identified and everyone’s views are presented, team members will be able to differentiate between their opinions and their positions. Building strong team relationships means that even if one member is not present, their views are represented fairly.   

Key Quotes

“It’s as if the team is a boat with one person serving as designer, captain, navigator, and engineer at the same time and the crew merely show up and row.” (Pg. 3) – This is Schwarz’s description of how the unilateral control mindset works.

“Mindset is the key to changing how you lead. If you want to change the results you have to change the mindset that causes you to behave the way you do.” (Pg. 17) – How a person leads is determined not by what is said, but by the core values and assumptions, both of which then affect their behavior. In order to change leadership styles, leaders must first change how they think: their mindset.

“Leadership is power with others not over others…power is not zero-sum. If you share power with others you don’t lose any yourself.” (Pg. 22) – Using the mutual learning mindset, goals are achieved by learning from others; each member of the team has a piece of the puzzle which can only be solved by working together.

“When you operate from this assumption, something wonderful happens- the organization contains fewer jerks.” (Pg. 69) – Assumption number four (accountability) states that members may disagree with the leader and still have pure motives. This leads to healthy, productive conversations instead of a turf war and unproductive gossip.

“When your team operates from a mutual learning mindset, it can discuss difficult issues in the team without becoming defensive.”(Pg. 76) – The interest of the team, not personal positions become important. Friction is not avoided by team members complaining about each other to the team leader. Everything is openly discussed without malice and solutions and misconceptions are cleared up.

“The good news is that once you address the cause of what’s keep your team from engaging in full discussion with you, you won’t have to worry about whether you speak first, last, or at any time.” (Pg.182) – Transparency creates an atmosphere of sharing which allows all team members the opportunity to be heard.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Teamwork is a catch phrase that has been one of the greatest aspirations in industry and education. Teachers, as classroom leaders, have been provided with many strategies to instill the practice of teamwork in student groups. Administrators can use similar strategies to get grade-level teams, subject-area teams, and administrative teams to become more productive. Schwarz’s book describes a great step-by-step process through which productive teamwork can be achieved. He makes a valid claim that it is necessary for leaders to break away from the one-leader-in-the-room mentality. He also points out how easy it is to slip back into that mentality when faced with challenging situations. Schwarz goes into depth explaining how to handle difficult situations in order to build trusting relationships. His solutions sound reasonable; but he admits that many leaders will prefer to avoid these situations in order to keep the peace.

Throughout history societies have been patriarchal, matriarchal, and monarchical. Humankind has witnessed the struggle for shared leadership and the fight to be respectfully heard by the rank and file. Achieving Schwarz’s mutual learning mindset, although not impossible, takes constant awareness and consistent effort. Even he admits that research shows that although 98% of leaders, while speaking the language of teamwork, they act as if their word is law. Smart Leaders Smarter Teams, paints a beautiful picture of what can be achieved in a perfect world; reality is very different. In order for this theory to work as described, every team member needs to have a mutual learning mindset. Every team member needs to be respectfully curious when challenged. They need not become defensive when they are specifically held accountable. Each member must be fully transparent and divulge every aspect of information. Schwarz’s perfect picture does not consider the variations in human personalities and other factors that constantly affect human behavior.

Comparison to Fullan

Michael Fullan’s book, Leading in a Culture of Change is very similar to Roger Schwarz’s book Smart Leaders Smarter Teams. Both authors provide solutions for effective leadership. They both articulate that leaders must establish core values and practices at all levels of the organization.

Fullan’s framework for leadership starts with the moral purpose of the leader. While very similar to Schwarz’s core values, Fullan’s moral purpose is grouped with understanding change, coherence making, and knowledge creation and sharing. According to Schwatz, leaders must be transparent and share all knowledge so that team members can make informed decisions. Both authors expound the importance of trust and relationship building. Without these elements there would be breakdowns in communication within teams and the commitment that the authors aspire to, will not be achieved.

Fullan ties together his core values with the leader’s energy, enthusiasm and hope which spreads to every member of the team. Schwarz, on the other hand, describes how his core values lead to certain types of behaviors. These are not behaviors of the formal team leader only, but flows from every team member, since each member is a leader in his own right. While Fullan does a better job of addressing reculturing by putting knowledge into practice, Schwarz addresses ways to handle challenging situations within the team head-on, because avoiding these challenges will weaken the team in the long run.

Both authors use examples from industry, but Fullan also includes many examples in the school environment. They do a great job of describing how to achieve their ultimate goal of increasing the commitment of team members in order to increase productivity, or according to Fullan (2001), “make more good things happen” (p. 4). 

References

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Schwarz, R (2013). Smart Leaders Smarter Teams: How You and Your Team Get Unstuck to Get Results. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass

To top

---

---

Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET 

* Special Education Teacher – $60,000/school year (185 days), summers off with year-round pay and year round appreciation. Special Education Teachers needed in Arizona (Phoenix and surrounding cities). Needs are in the self-contained and resource settings serving students with emotional disabilities (ED), Autism (A), Severe/Profound (S/P), and Intellectual Disabilities (ID). STARS is the largest school contract agency in AZ. STARS is owned and operated by Occupational Therapists. You will be an employee and receive full benefits – To learn more – Click here

* Special Education Teacher (Chicago) – I’ve just been retained by Bennett Day School (one of Chicago’s top-ranked private schools) to identify an outstanding Learning Resource & Special Ed Teacher. To learn more – Click here

* (Remote) Special Education Teacher – Special Education Teacher provide instruction, support and guidance, manage the learning process, and focus on students’ individual needs as defined by each student’s IEP.  The special education teacher is also responsible for the compliance documents required in serving students with special needs. To learn more – Click here

* Early Childhood Specialist – Willamette Education Service District is accepting applications for multiple full-time (1.0 FTE) EI/ECSE Specialist positions with the Special Education Department’s Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education (EI/ECSE) program. The positions are for the 2020-2021 school year and may be based in Marion, Polk and/or Yamhill County.  Successful candidates will will follow a 190-day calendar and will begin on August 21, 2020. To learn more – Click here

* Special Ed Teacher – The Home at Walpole seeks a Special Education Teacher for their Massachusetts Chapter 766 Special Education School, Clifford Academy. Clifford Academy provides a year-round engaging and comprehensive program focused on education, career development, recreation/fitness, and an individualized therapeutic approach.Under direction of a Principal, participate in the implementation of individualized educational programs for special needs children at varying academic levels. To learn more – Click here

* Executive Director of Special Education – Garland ISD seeks an Executive Director of Special Education with the following qualifications, Master’s Degree, Special Education Certification, Principal/Mid-Management Certification, three (3) years’ teaching experience; special education preferred, experience in successful leadership role at the District or State level, earned or in progress doctorate. To learn more – Click here

* Special Education Teacher – Is sought who demonstrates a commitment to the success of all SLA students and specifically to raising the academic achievement of children in high-poverty communities and/ or children with special needs. Has a desire to grow professionally and seek out new opportunities to learn; and integrity and clarity in all communications and interactions. To learn more – Click here

* Special Education Teacher – We are looking for highly motivated and skilled Special Education teachers to join our team at District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). DCPS serves more than 51,000 students through the e?orts of approximately 4,000 educators in 117 schools. DCPS intends to have the highest-performing, best paid, most satis?ed, and most honored educator force in the nation and a distinctive central o?ce sta? whose work supports and drives instructional excellence and significant achievement gains for DCPS students. To learn more- Click here

To top

Acknowledgements

Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:

• Center for Parent Information and Resources
• Committee on Education and the Workforce
• FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
• Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
• National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
• National Institute of Health
• National Organization on Disability
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
• U.S. Department of Education
• U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
• U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• U.S. Department of Labor
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• U.S. Office of Special Education

The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal

---

To top

Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal

To View or Download a PDF file for this issue of the Special Educator e-Journal  –  CLICK HERE

To top