Assessment

By now it should be apparent that unconditional education (UE) is both comprehensive in its scope and ambitious in its goals. This chapter will help outline the formative assessment process that has been created as a means to inform high-quality program planning and implementation and summative assessments used to measure the extent to which the model promotes positive outcomes for students and schools. The two overarching goals of implementing this model are (1) to increase the academic performance and social-emotional well-being of the most struggling students and (2) to increase the capacity of schools serving highly stressed communities to deliver effective interventions through the implementation of a transdisciplinary multi-tiered framework. The second goal relates to capacity building and systems change within the school community itself; while the first relates to the outcomes these changes bring about. More information about the model’s overall theory of action can be found in the logic model in Appendix 7.1. The logic model also highlights the four key components of UE and the implementation strategies related to them. These key components are as follows: …System efficiency, resources match the level of identified student need and schools are able to leverage braided funding, including general education, special education, and mental health dollars. Coordination of services, a transdisciplinary team reviews data, assigns students to intervention, and monitors their progress. Universal supports/Tier 1, a culture and climate team engages in a schoolwide assessment and planning process explained in great detail later in this chapter. Targeted and intensive supports, data-informed, high-quality interventions are implemented with fidelity and monitored for effectiveness…. The strategies related to these four key components are expected to influence a set of comprehensive, long-term outcomes. These outcomes measure the extent to which the model has improved school culture and climate (as measured by the School Climate Assessment Instrument), increased academic achievement (as measure by standardized tests), improved behavior outcomes (as measured by suspension rates), and increased attendance. While data are reviewed at the end of every school year, it is not until the third year that a substantial impact on these long-term measures is expected.

Schools as Relational Networks

Changing the economic and structural systems of schooling, as explored in the previous chapter, is essential. But systems change, in and of itself, is insufficient for true transformation (Elmore, 2007). Our schools are more than structural systems. They are communities—networks of human relationships that inform the trajectory of students’ future lives while defining their current experiences. As discussed in Chapter 2, under-resourced, siloed systems create a fractured framework troubled with economic inefficiencies. These same conditions simultaneously promote a splintered relational network. In other words, schools with the greatest opportunity gaps face multiple layers of resource-related stressors that shape not only their physical and systematic design but also the psyches of entire school communities. Parents come to expect that schools lack either the willingness or the ability to help their children and engage with schools in a manner consistent with this underlying belief. Students make sense of the system by figuring out what others expect from “students like them” and acting out their assigned role accordingly. Staff squabble over the few resources that do exist and blame each other for the gaps in support and services available. To mitigate the effects of resource-related stressors we must cultivate school communities of safety, acceptance, and belonging. In this chapter, we ask: How can specific intentional approaches to relationship remediate past experiences of exclusion? Childhood poverty is widespread in the United States and income inequality has become increasingly pronounced in recent years. According to a report published by the National Center for Children in Poverty, nearly half of our nation’s children (30.6 million) live in families classified as “low income,” many without consistent means to meet their most basic needs (Jiang, Ekono, & Skinner, 2016). Nowhere is America’s class divide more evident than in our nation’s schools. Low socioeconomic status has time and again been linked to reduced educational outcomes. Ultimately, students from low-income families nationwide are less likely to graduate on time than their peers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).

Unconditional Education Framework

The first half of this book has helped lay the theoretical foundation on which the unconditional education (UE) model stands. Building off of the three pillars of unconditional care (systems theory, relational theory, and behavioral learning theory), the second half of this book transitions to providing an overview of what it concretely takes to implement this model in schools. The following chapters will provide insight into the architectural framework, the data-informed processes for ongoing assessment and evaluation, the stages of implementation, the funding mechanisms that support such work, and the challenges that inevitably arise when promoting complex change of this nature. We begin in this chapter with an overview of the model itself. UE functions as a unifying framework in which to consider an array of interventions designed for students and schools. This framework incorporates a set of systems and processes that leverage needed expertise and resources, align funding sources, and articulate a strategy for serving all students. By implementing this framework, schools are better prepared to promote equitable access to quality education for all students, with the greatest impact experienced by the most marginalized youth—those whose achievement is hindered by complex stressors including disability, trauma, poverty, and institutionalized racism. UE concerns itself less with the particulars of intervention type, instead assuming that many sorts of intervention programs have the potential to be effective so long as they are based on research, are well implemented, and are chosen to meet the particular needs of a student, family, school, or community context. In other words, UE is centered on the belief that the effectiveness of specific interventions is enhanced when implemented within a cohesive framework that promotes four central enablers for school transformation: increased efficiency, intentional relationship building, cross-sector responsibility, and local decision-making. The essential structure behind UE draws heavily from other multi-tiered frameworks. UE articulates three levels of service, described in greater detail in the next sections: universal (Tier 1), targeted (Tier 2), and intensive (Tier 3) (Figure 5.1).

Implementation Challenges

By now you are likely aware that unconditional education (UE) is a practice of optimization. That is, the aim is to provide just the right amount of intervention to get the job done, but never unnecessary excess. Chapter 1 introduced the key principles that drive UE: efficiency, intentional relationship building, cross-sector responsibility, and local decision-making. Much of the rest of this book has addressed what happens in schools when these principles are absent. However, in reviewing early UE implementation pitfalls, most, if not all, missteps can be traced back to an overzealous application of these principles without adequate consideration for a just-right approach. This chapter will explore these common missteps and trace the surprising ways in which an over-application of the principles of UE can unintentionally replicate the very practices of exclusion it was designed to address. The previous chapters have proposed that healthy and trusting relationships play a central role when it comes to both personal and organizational learning. While the cultivation of relationships takes time, once established, the presence of relational trust can accelerate efforts. In schools highly impacted by trauma, an initial investment in relationship building is in fact a prerequisite for any successful transformation to take hold. The work of creating trauma-informed schools necessitates that we acknowledge these experiences and create plans to address the vicarious trauma often felt by school staff themselves. In some cases, even this is not enough. Organizational trauma—in which interactions within the entire building or district itself evidence the weight of working in resource-strapped environments—is common in public schools. It is often the case that years of unhealthy competition, inadequate funding, and failed initiatives and promises have overwhelmed an organization’s protective structures and rendered it less resilient for the hard work required to bring about the exact change the organization needs in order to heal and thrive (Vickers & Kouzmin, 2001). Not all public schools operate as traumatized systems, yet the conditions within many schools, particularly those serving a high percentage of students who belong to systematically oppressed groups, are most vulnerable.

Leadership and Strategic Planning

Researchers within the field of organizational development have made a concerted effort to distinguish between two types of change organizations experience: first-order change, in which individual parameters shift but the system itself stays firmly in its place, and second-order change, in which the system itself undergoes meaningful transformation (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). The unconditional education (UE) approach shares the four common features of complex, or second-order, change: …change that involves multiple processes and tools being introduced to multifaceted human service systems, thereby requiring a certain level of trial and error to determine how the intervention best “fits” within each adoptive organization; change that involves a shift in stakeholders’ work roles and responsibilities, including how individuals coordinate and communicate; change that introduces new skills and knowledge; and change that requires a fundamental paradigm shift that may conflict with prevailing values and norms, including shifts in how participants are supposed understand and think about their work (Bryk, 2016; Waters & Grubb, 2004). … Acknowledging the complexity that exists in change initiatives is often the first step in understanding how to promote their successful implementation (Bryk, 2016; Waters & Grubb, 2004). Chapters 5, 6, and 7 have introduced the framework behind the UE model and its core principles of practice. This chapter will explore some of the essential strategies that promote successful implementation within a wide range of school and district settings, including (1) the role of leadership in initiating complex change, (2) the common developmental stages that begin UE transformation, and (3) the financial drivers capable of sustaining change over time. Initiating a complex change process requires an intentional approach. Successful implementation of UE hinges on the ability of leaders to inspire a unified vision across all stakeholders while simultaneously connecting this vision to concrete actions that create a clear path forward. Rather than assuming an overwhelmingly positive response, successful UE leaders anticipate skepticism and resistance. They celebrate early adopters, but also make plans to ensure the voices of dissenters are included in decision-making.

Schools as Centers for Behavioral Learning

Organizing for effective change requires an understanding both of formal systems and of intimate human relationships. It requires that efforts be intentionally embedded within local context while remaining attuned to the human dynamics that breathe life into these very communities. Chapter 2 proposed that true educational reform requires deep and sustained systems-level change. Chapter 3 explored the impact that relationships have on the sense of connection, trust, and vulnerability necessary for the transformative process. Building on a systems-level lens and an investment in human relationships, this chapter will explore the tenets of behavioral learning theory to better understand how behavior change contributes to transformation within students and school communities. Changing behavior is difficult; it is a slow, often circuitous, journey. It requires real people, with their own personal preferences and habits, to change behaviors that they may have grown strongly accustomed to overtime. What’s more, school professionals responsible for shaping the behavior of others within the education setting often lack the foundational knowledge and skills to do so. In the process of reshaping student behavior and inspiring adult learning, educators frequently start with ambitious goals that lack a clearly articulated plan for promoting the changes necessary to achieve them. Without a roadmap, it is commonplace for educators to become convinced that efforts at change are going nowhere, to lose hope or give up along the way, and tell themselves that “we just can’t help this difficult student” or “this schoolwide initiative won’t work here.” This chapter proposes that the principles of behavioral learning theory can be applied to (1) teach students the social-emotional skills they need to become successful scholars and citizens and (2) build the capacity of adults to improve the overall culture and climate of a school campus. Guided by the tenets of behavioral learning theory we ask the following questions: How do we approach challenging behavior as an opportunity to engage with students and build new behavioral skills? How do we create proactive discipline systems with the explicit purpose of creating a sense of predictability, consistency, and equity?

Coordination of Services

Issues of coordination, integration, and early intervention are addressed throughout this book. Within the unconditional education (UE) framework, they come together in practice most visibly through the coordination of services team (COST). While the idea of a COST is not unique to UE, the framework’s explicit articulation of certain processes and protocols have helped to ensure that the myriad decision-making and data analysis processes that drive UE coexist in a coherent manner. Such carefully structured coordination is essential, given that barriers to academic success are most often multifaceted. A highly functioning COST ensures that individual student and schoolwide supports are coordinated and build on each other in a meaningful way, rather than competing with each other for a student’s valuable time. In addition, COST integrates services so that they create a seamless and comprehensive experience for students and families, rather than promoting supports that feel fractured or redundant. Of equal importance, COST allows schools to respond with early interventions, ensuring that services are quickly deployed and responsive to the evolving needs of schools and staff throughout the year. One of the key factors in ensuring that effective solutions are developed within a COST is, quite simply, making sure that the right people are sitting around the table. As we have established, barriers to school success are often difficult to identify. What manifests as a struggle with math could instead be a response to intense anxiety, and what manifests as defiant behavior could also stem from being asked to read a text that is too difficult. When it comes to identifying the root cause of student challenges, the possibilities are endless, as are the unique solutions that may be developed to address them. For this reason, it is important that a diverse, transdisciplinary team of specialists collaborate with teachers and administrators to identify the true origins of a problem and responsive action steps to address them. To enable this transdisciplinary transfer of knowledge, teams in UE schools usually consist of the following team members: …COST facilitator (often the UE coach) School administrator Special education teacher …

Schools as Systems

The work of changing schools means acknowledging that we are, in fact, changing systems. Often, these are long-established systems enacted by multiple stakeholders invested in their preservation. Many efforts to promote educational equity attempt to tackle a single problematic aspect of the school in the hope that addressing an identified need in one area will improve the system as a whole. Some schools adopt a new math curriculum, hoping it will yield higher 4-year graduation rates. Other schools introduce computer-based learning, believing it will improve the ability of teachers to differentiate content. Still others practice mindfulness with students to reduce suspension rates. Efforts such as these are praiseworthy, but the piecemeal approach often fails to translate into meaningful change. At the other extreme, many schools choose to implement various reform efforts simultaneously—a new math curriculum, for instance, supplemented by computer-based learning and followed by a schoolwide mindfulness exercise. The result, generally, is mile-wide and inch-deep efforts that leave already overtaxed schools and principals with the challenge of running multiple initiatives at once, very likely without the resources to implement any one of them successfully (Cuban, 1990). Piecemeal or duplicative approaches to school transformation are particularly troubling as they rarely produce the systemic transformation required to reduce broadscale inequities within the system. When problems are identified in isolation, solutions tend to address symptoms rather than the underlying causes of the most acute or prevalent manifestations. More often than not, addressing the root cause requires some level of attention to the system itself. When these systems-level changes are ignored, similar problems are likely to occur again in the future. Nowhere is this more true than in the systems designed to address learning and mental health challenges in schools. Special education services rely largely on pull-out approaches to service delivery only after students have shown substantial deficits in their learning. The words mental health are often synonymous with clinicians providing closed-door therapy to specific students or supporting young people with disabilities who have been placed in specialized, segregated settings.

Introduction

Unconditional education (UE) is driven by the belief that public schools are responsible for all students. This may seem a foregone conclusion: national trends in education never seem weary of exclaiming that no child shall be left behind, that all children in this nation will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education or, more recently, that every student shall succeed. The concept of unconditional education is not new. However, public schools have yet to fully deliver on its promise, failing to build truly inclusive systems of care capable of serving students with the most exceptional needs. The UE model, as presented in this book, serves as an organizing framework for education leaders who are looking to reshape their schools in order to better meet the broad range of needs of their students, families, and staff. This book may appear to focus only on students with the most exceptional needs. That focus, however, is not limited. UE is founded on the belief that improving the educational experience of our most vulnerable children, in the end, benefits all children. Its aim is to create learning environments where students receive the support they need when they need it, not only after they have reached a certain, designated threshold of failure. UE seeks to build truly engaging and exhaustively positive environments where all students, their families, and the school’s staff feel safe and deeply connected to the community, laying the foundation necessary for academic success. This is a book about transformational change in schools. Such change, by its very definition, requires a fundamental shift in the way schools do business. To be even more clear: this is a book that seeks to disrupt the well-established ways in which schools operate, from the daily experiences of students, families, and staff to the organizing structures that influence them, such as schedules, discipline practices, working conditions, service delivery, and physical space. This is a book about how to create actual changes within actual schools.