Blog

5 Strategies to Improve the IEP Process with Parent Participation

*Key points from Carol Kosnitsky’s blog post, presented by Laura Materi, Frontline Education.

Guest post by author and former Special Education Director Carol Kosnitsky

Nowhere is the value for parental involvement in education more evident than in the special education process. IDEA provides safeguards to ensure that parents assume a key decision-making role in their child’s IEP. To further emphasize its importance, the Office of Special Education Programs annually assesses the “percent of parents… who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.” (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

While the positive impact of parental involvement is well documented, so are the challenges parents and school personnel may experience as they work as teams. Consider some of the dynamics that can influence the development of a healthy team:

Educators can be empathetic yet may not fully understand the emotional impact an IEP meeting has on parents.
School team members have multiple opportunities to become fluent in the special education process. This is not the case for the parent who engages in the process less frequently and with few opportunities for practice over time.
Day-to-day contact among school personnel allows for informal communication, brainstorming and team building. Not a part of this informal network, parents come into a meeting in a decidedly different position.

5 Ways to Increase Parent Participation in the IEP Process

Here are some strategies teams can use to increase parental participation in the IEP process.

Make it personal!
Probably more than anything else, a parent wants evidence that team members know their child as an individual. Have staff introduce themselves to parents and share an anecdote that demonstrates their positive relationship with their child. For example: “Jasmine did a terrific job on her last science lab report. What did you think about that B+ she received?”
Help parents prepare for IEP meetings.
We all agree nobody knows a child as well as their parents. It’s important to demystify the IEP process and help parents know ahead of time what you’re looking for. Send a simple questionnaire to parents with sentence starters (e.g., “My child is good at _________. My child has difficulty with __________. My child’s behaviors include _________.”). Send the questionnaire with the meeting notice and ask parents to complete it and bring it to the meeting to share with the rest of the team. If you know a parent will have difficulty completing the form, give them a call. Let him/her know you’re taking notes so you can embed his/her ideas into the IEP draft. As with all of us, parents appreciate being asked and feel validated when their input is included! And don’t let the concern that all parents may not respond get in the way of you reaching out to those who will![ctt template=”9″ link=”1P95X” via=”yes” ]Educators can be empathetic yet may not fully understand the emotional impact an IEP meeting has on parents.[/ctt]
Level the playing field through shared information.
Make every effort to provide evaluation information to the parent prior to the annual review meeting. If a draft IEP is prepared, providing a copy in advance promotes the ability for the parent to fully engage in a discussion during the meeting. Make sure it is clearly noted as a “draft” document and populated with only those sections that can be constructed without pre-determining placement. In addition, make it clear in the transmittal that the draft IEP includes preliminary recommendations for review and discussion with the parents during the meeting. Sharing information in advance eliminates any parental concerns that some team members know things they don’t. Further, it reduces the need for parents to digest a lot of new information “on the spot.” Prior access allows them to compose their thoughts and prepare any questions or concerns they may have.
Seek to understand the parent’s “interest,” not “position.”
We’ve all experienced situations when we lay out a position that in fact may not accurately reflect our true concern. Once we stake out a position, it can be very difficult to get beyond it. When a parent states a position or demand, it’s critical the conversation focus on what problem is the parent really trying to solve. For example: During the IEP meeting, a parent requests their child be assigned a 1-to-1 paraprofessional. Rather than initially respond to this request (yes or no), ask the parent to describe what it would look like if the paraprofessional was helping their child. If the parent responds by saying the para will ensure their child is safe during recess and lunch, the team may now have insight into the parent’s true concern. A paraprofessional may or may not be the appropriate (or only) solution. However, now everyone is on the same page about what concerns need to be addressed. How you address that interest might lead the team to a whole range of supports never considered when responding to the initial position.
Provide meaningful progress reports.
Many educators find it difficult to communicate with parents when the child is not making appropriate progress toward a goal. The best way to address this is to ensure IEP goals are measurable, and a structured process is in place to frequently monitor the student’s progress. This data objectively quantifies the degree of progress the student is (or isn’t) making. By collecting objective data, the team can address the lack of progress proactively. Most parents know their children experience challenges in reaching school-based goals, as they have experienced similar challenges with them at home. What is more difficult for a parent is to find out their child did not make adequate progress at the end of the IEP cycle, when a mid-course correction is no longer available.

Final Thoughts on Facilitating School/Parent Collaboration in the IEP Process

There are no guarantees that parents and school team members will always agree on decisions to be made. However, there are things schools can do to increase parent confidence and engagement in the process. Not only will this make the team process more rewarding for all involved, it will strengthen the foundation on which the team can work through conflicts without destroying relationships.

Does your special education staff feel empowered to give detailed answers to unexpected parent questions about their child’s IEP or progress? As you train staff on parent outreach, consider how ready access to live, reliable student data can make their lives easier. Learn more about IEP & Special Education Management with Frontline.

8 Steps to Monitor Progress on Tier 2/3 Reading Interventions

Whenever I can, I like to visit the American southwest and hike in rocky desert terrain. I often find small piles of stones (cairns) placed at intervals as trail markers. Hikers are always on the lookout to spot the next cairn, moving from signpost to signpost to successfully navigate the trail. Trekkers who ignore the progress-monitoring information of these trail markers can quickly wander off the track and become lost.

Like hikers in a rugged landscape, RTI/MTSS interventionists rely on signposts — in this case, academic performance data — to judge in real time whether their intervention efforts are successful. And Tier 2/3 academic interventions come with high stakes. If struggling students fail to respond to these targeted interventions, they can face negative outcomes like grade or course failure or school disengagement. They may even be referred for special education services. Therefore, interventionists must regularly collect academic progress-monitoring data on Tier 2/3 students to judge with confidence whether their current attempts at intervention are effective and — if necessary — to self-correct by trying different interventions.¹

However, the diversity in student need and assessment tools at Tier 2/3 makes the topic of monitoring progress for interventions complex ― Tier 2/3 students present with diverse academic deficits across the grade levels; interventionists employ a variety of reading assessments; schools use a range of different school-wide RTI/MTSS screeners.

By following this general 8-step process, any interventionist can bring order and simplicity to the process of accurately monitoring Tier 2/3 reading interventions.

Step 1: Who qualifies for Tier 2/3 intervention services?

A necessary first step to establishing and progress-monitoring Tier 2/3 groups is identifying which students would benefit from these intervention services. It is the job of the school-wide academic screener to accurately predict students’ current risk for academic failure.

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

Listing of MTSS academic screening tools from the National Center on Intensive Intervention.

This screener is administered at least 3 times per year, typically in the fall, winter and spring. Once the screener has been administered to all students, the school consults the screener’s ‘benchmark’ (performance) norms and applies pre-selected cut-points (e.g., 11^th-20^th percentile for Tier 2; 10^th percentile or below for Tier 3) to identify those students eligible for intervention services.² At the same time, any current Tier 2/3 students with improved screening results who now fall within the ‘low-risk’ range can be exited from these services.

Step 2: What are the appropriate groupings of Tier 2/3 students based on profile of academic need?

Once you identify students eligible for Tier 2/3 services, you need to organize them into small intervention groups (i.e., Tier 2: up to 7 students; Tier 3: up to 3 students) based on a shared profile of academic need.³

The uniform sorting of students into groups based on academic skill level is a crucial step in preparation for high-quality Tier 2/3 progress-monitoring. After all, if a single intervention group is created with too wide a range of academic deficits, the interventionist will find it difficult or impossible to match all learners to one effective intervention program — or to find a common measure capable of tracking progress across such a heterogeneous population.

There are school-wide screening instruments that provide at least some diagnostic information about students’ reading skills, allowing interventionists to group students uniformly based on shared academic deficits. More often, the screener efficiently identifies a student as being at risk for academic failure but provides little additional data on the nature of that learner’s specific academic gaps. In such cases, you will need to administer supplemental formal or informal diagnostic assessments to more fully map out the profile of deficient academic skills.

Step 3: What assessment method(s) will you use to monitor Tier 2/3 progress?

After you place students in Tier 2/3 groups based on academic need and match them to appropriate intervention programs, you need to select at least one reading-assessment method (e.g., phonological skills; print awareness; letter knowledge; phonics/decoding; vocabulary; fluency; comprehension) to track student progress across the span of time the intervention will be in effect.⁴ You can review a listing of MTSS academic progress-monitoring tools at the National Center on Intensive Intervention website.

Progress-monitoring tools that you select should⁵:

Be reliable and valid measures of the academic skill(s) that the intervention group is working on (e.g., letter knowledge; reading comprehension)
Accurately measure short-term growth in academic skills, and
Include sufficient alternate forms (versions) of the assessment to allow monitoring across all weeks of the intervention period.

Schools may look to several possible sources to locate an appropriate academic monitoring tool to track Tier 2/3 progress:

Intervention program: Progress-monitoring component. Commercial academic-intervention programs used at Tiers 2 and 3 sometimes include their own progress-monitoring tools: e.g., Fundations from Wilson Language Training.
School-wide screener: Progress-monitoring component. Some building-wide academic screeners used to identify students for Tier 2/3 services (e.g., iReady) also have the capacity to monitor those students’ progress.

Important note: Interventionists will need to research these measures to ensure that they adequately assess the specific skills being taught in the intervention group.

Curriculum-based measures. Intervention groups working on foundational academic skills may want to investigate curriculum-based measures (CBMs) to track progress. CBMs are brief, timed measures of basic academic skills (e.g., letter identification; reading fluency; math-fact fluency) that are administered and scored using standardized procedures.

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

Example of CBM materials: Free DIBELS assessments for schools to assess reading-related skills from the University of Oregon.

Step 4: How long will the Tier 2/3 intervention last?

The length of Tier 2/3 interventions should strike a balance. On the one hand, they should be in place long enough to collect sufficient progress-monitoring data to reliably evaluate whether the intervention is effective. On the other hand, they should not run so long without being evaluated that students run the risk of being stranded for extended periods in interventions that are not working. Generally, 6-10 instructional weeks is an appropriate span of time to run a Tier 2/3 intervention before checking up on its impact.

Step 5: What is the Tier 2/3 group’s baseline performance?

Before the start of Tier 2/3 group sessions, the interventionist collects baseline data on each student. The importance of this baseline data is to reflect students’ current reading performance, allowing you to clearly track each student’s progress during the intervention. Students receiving Tier 2/3 services often display variable assessment data, so — when possible — the you should attempt to collect at least three data points on each student before the intervention start date and identify the median value from the series as the best estimate of baseline performance.

Real-word example of collecting baseline data:

A reading teacher places a fourth-grade student in a Tier 2 group to work on reading fluency. That teacher administers curriculum-based measurement (CBM) oral reading fluency probes to the student on three separate days for baseline and gets these results: 68 words per minute (WPM), 56 WPM, 72 WPM. So, the teacher uses the median value from this series, 68 WPM, as an estimate of the student’s baseline performance.

Step 6: What is each student’s outcome goal?

Before beginning the Tier 2/3 intervention group, the interventionist sets an academic outcome goal for each student. Establishing and then working toward a specified goal can motivate both teacher and learner. Even more important, an outcome goal establishes a definitive threshold for success: if at the end of the intervention, the student has met or exceeded the goal, the intervention is judged as effective.

The type and magnitude of the goal you select for any student will depend on both the reading-assessment method used (see Step 3) and that student’s initial (baseline) reading ability (see Step 5).

By definition however, the student receiving Tier 2/3 reading services has substantial gaps in reading skills and must accelerate learning to catch up with grade-level peers. So, the Tier 2/3 interventionist should set an outcome goal for that student that is ‘ambitious but realistic’⁶: the selected goal has a reasonable likelihood of success (‘realistic’) but also falls within the high range of achievement (‘ambitious’) for learners with a profile similar to that of the target student.

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

7 Steps to Monitor Progress on Tier 1/Classroom Interventions.

Step 7: How often should you collect data?

The progress-monitoring data collected during any RTI/MTSS intervention should be ‘formative’ — that is, it should be collected with sufficient frequency to allow the interventionist to judge in real time the effectiveness of the intervention. For Tier 2, you should collect data at least 2 times per month. For Tier 3, data collection should take place at least weekly.

Recent research also suggests that inconsistencies in how student data is collected can result in a worrying amount of variability (‘error’) creeping into progress-monitoring data. Therefore, schools should attempt as much as possible to standardize key elements of data collection, including student directions; administration procedures; time of day; and assignment of a single, familiar staff member to perform the assessments.⁷

[ctt template=”9″ link=”ACG6Z” via=”yes” nofollow=”yes”]Research suggests that inconsistencies in how student data is collected can result in a worrying amount of variability (‘error’) creeping into progress-monitoring data. #RTI #MTSS[/ctt]

Step 8: Is the intervention plan working? How does each student’s actual performance compare with the outcome goal?

Once the intervention begins, the Tier 2/3 interventionist provides academic services to students until the check-up date (see Step 4) arrives 6-10 instructional weeks later. At that point, the interventionist reviews progress-monitoring data for each student and compares it to the goal.

There are 2 potential outcome decisions to make at this point:

Should the student continue in the current intervention?
Does the student still need Tier 2/3 services in general?

The most straightforward question is whether the student should remain enrolled in the current reading intervention. These decision rules can help you find the answer:

Outcome goal met. If a student meets the outcome goal, the intervention is successful. However, if the interventionist judges that the current intervention is still helping the student, it should continue. If instead you decide that the intervention is no longer needed, it should be discontinued.
Clear progress – but outcome goal not met. If the progress-monitoring data shows that the student has made meaningful progress but still falls short of the outcome goal, you may elect to keep the current program but make adjustments to strengthen it — like shrinking the group size, increasing frequency and/or length of sessions, etc.
Little or no progress observed. If the student fails to make significant progress in the group, the interventionist should consider switching the student to a different intervention program or referring that student for more intensive intervention services (e.g., to move from Tier 2 to Tier 3).

If a student is found to meet or exceed the outcome goal, a second question to consider is whether that learner should now transition to a lower level of RTI/MTSS support. For example, is a successful Tier 3 student ready to drop down to Tier 2 services? Or is it time for a proficient Tier 2 learner to exit from supplemental services altogether?

When the intervention check-up date coincides with the next round of school-wide reading screening, this is typically a simple decision to make. Students in Tiers 2 and 3 would first be expected to show through current screening results that they now fall within the low-risk range before they are allowed to transition to a lower Tier of RTI/MTSS service.

Sometimes the Tier 2/3 intervention check-up date falls to coincide with the next pending school-wide screening. In those cases, the school must make the judgment call about whether to give the Tier 2/3 interventionist latitude to judge — based on the progress-monitoring data — whether the student has made sufficient growth to justify stepping down to a lower intervention Tier.

Key Takeaway: Screening is the Foundation for a Progress-Monitoring Plan

Like trail markers on a hiking path, progress-monitoring data helps you set and then evaluate whether students are achieving an accelerated ‘catch-up’ rate of learning in Tier 2/3 interventions. A consistent stream of progress-monitoring can also:

Provide real-time evidence of intervention impact that prevents students from languishing in ineffective services.
Make the case in combination with updated screening data for stepping down or exiting from intervention a successful Tier 2/3 student.
Yield clear documentation to be archived in the school’s RTI/MTSS content-management system indicating whether students have benefited from particular Tier 2/3 intervention groups.

It is worth repeating that a progress-monitoring plan for a Tier 2 or 3 reading group is feasible only when students are first grouped uniformly according to area(s) of reading deficit. To accomplish these homogeneous groupings, the school typically depends on information from the fall/winter/spring school-wide screenings — and perhaps additional diagnostic testing. So, at Tiers 2 and 3, plans to monitor progress of intervention groups are built on the foundation of screening data.

Are your struggling learners receiving the right level of support? Collect the screening data you need alongside other data sources to find your answer with Frontline’s RTI/MTSS Program Management software.

Hixson, M. D., Christ, T. J., & Bruni, T. (2014). Best practices in the analysis of progress monitoring data and decision making in A. Thomas & Patti Harris (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology VI (pp. 343-354). Silver Springs, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Glover, T.A. & Albers, C. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 117-135.

Wright, J. (2007). The RTI toolkit: A practical guide for schools. Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources, Inc.

Johnson, E. S., Pool, J., & Carter, D. R. (n.d.). Screening for reading problems in grades 1 through 3: An overview of selected measures. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/assessment/screening/screening-for-reading-problems-in-grades-1-through-3.

Hixson, M. D., Christ, T. J., & Bruni, T. (2014). Best practices in the analysis of progress monitoring data and decision making in A. Thomas & Patti Harris (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology VI (pp. 343-354). Silver Springs, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Shapiro, E. S. (2008). Best practices in setting progress-monitoring monitoring goals for academic skill improvement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 141-157). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Hixson, M. D., Christ, T. J., & Bruni, T. (2014). Best practices in the analysis of progress monitoring data and decision making in A. Thomas & P. Harris (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology VI (pp. 343-354). Silver Springs, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

4 Simple Ways to Boost Educator Growth Every Day

With the start of a new school year almost upon us (or maybe already here), educators everywhere are gearing up — making preparations for students, polishing up lesson plans, training new hires and laying plans for the year.

As C&I departments publish professional learning catalogs and plan PD initiatives, many are asking, “How do we engage our teachers in professional learning? How can we make sure PL in our district is as effective as possible?”

Those are great questions, and for educators who know all too well just how busy autumn can be, the answers might seem unattainable.

We asked leaders at several different school districts to weigh in. They had some compelling ideas for effective professional learning that can be implemented right away, even if you don’t have the resources — or the time — to start a massive program.

(Transcripts have been lightly edited for readability.)

Listen to individual stories

“One of the things that we definitely need to always be mindful of is making sure that we’re not just tracking big data and impact change at the system level, but making sure we’re finding out those individual stories,” said Rowena Mak, then the Director of Student Learning Programs at Adlai E. Stevenson High School District #125 in Lincolnshire, IL. It’s equally important to connect with individual students, look at cases of student success and work with teachers to identify what has been effective in encouraging student growth. Such stories will help connect the data in your systems to the names and faces in your classrooms.

“One of the things that we definitely need to be mindful of is making sure that we are not just tracking big data and impact change at the system level, but making sure we are finding out those individual stories, knowing the names of students and the case studies of students where those success stories are. I know that in my program in particular, I make sure that I know names of students and their stories, and how it is that their story might be different or the same.

“I work with a lot of teachers, and finding out specific names of students, and then saying, ‘How did Bob grow this year? What connections are we making between Bob’s growth and the intervention efforts that we’re putting into place?’ So, helping everyone understand that when we talk about RTI, when we talk about changes, we’re not talking about some nameless or faceless student, but actual people in our school.”

Spread success around

Gretchen Polivka, Math Specialist at Fairfax County Public Schools in Falls Church, VA, recommended identifying key practices in each school that you’d like to see adopted by everyone. “What are some things you would like to see common in your entire school building? What are some things that you think everyone in your school should be implementing?” Then, encourage your teachers to observe those practices in action.

“In order to get something started in your own school, start small and really think about what are some things that you would like to see common in your entire school building? What are some things that you think everyone in your school should be implementing so that all students, regardless of which classroom they’re in, have access to the same level of instruction?

“All students should be able to have high quality, high leverage teaching, regardless of whose classroom they’re in. So, picking out some of those key things that each school thinks is important, and then starting to look at what components of those should be in place, and what does it look like in each classroom. Then teachers can have the ability to go around and see those things in action.”

Look for “Aha!” moments

Heather Peterson, the Coordinator of Organization Effectiveness, and now the Coordinator of Culture and Climate, at Hampton City Schools in Hampton, VA. She stressed the benefits of teachers self-identifying what their needs really are — and the increased engagement that accompanies such discoveries. “A lot of times we tell teachers what they need vs. letting them discover that ‘Aha!’ of how something’s going to make a difference.”

“One way that I was able to help get a teacher engaged in professional learning was helping them to identify what their true needs were. A lot of times we tell teachers what they need versus letting them discover that ‘Aha’ of how something is going to make a difference. Sitting down and talking about, ‘What challenges are you facing, or what is something you would like to overcome to make your students more successful?’ — providing the opportunity for the teacher to have that ‘Aha’ moment really made a difference for her. And she was completely engaged and wanted to know, ‘What else can I do? And where can I get more of it?’”

Make the most of hallway conversations

Great learning doesn’t need to be formal or lengthy, said Claudine Scuccato, a principal at the Peel District School Board in Ontario. “Do we need to sit in a boardroom to learn? Of course not. Can we have a learning conversation in the hallways that’s just as meaningful in two minutes as two hours of PD? Absolutely.” Time may be in short supply, but you can still create a culture of learning and collaboration in your organization — even if it’s in the hallways, at lunch or in the parking lot.

“Teachers say there’s such limited time to do so much for kids. We need to talk about what professional learning actually looks like. Do we need to sit in a boardroom to learn? Of course not. Can we have a learning conversation in the hallway that’s just as meaningful in two minutes as two hours of PD? Absolutely.

“We have to take the learning that other people have done and share that. Those conversations that happen at lunchtime, or that happen in the hallway, are just as meaningful and powerful. Time can’t be a factor all the time, so we have to make those conversations meaningful to what we need and to what we need to do to meet the needs of students.”

How do you know if your professional learning program is effective? Check out “Professional Development Program Evaluation for the Win!” This free resource (plus podcast!) is jam-packed with strategies to systematically review your professional learning program, collect and analyze data around its effectiveness, and then create useful and compelling reports.

10 Sources of Data to Build a Comprehensive IEP

*Key points from Carol Kosnitsky’s blog post, presented by Laura Materi, Frontline Education.

The IEP has the potential to “tell the right story” for each student with a disability — to describe the student’s strengths and assets, identify areas of need and chart a pathway for a successful school year. But to be relevant and meaningful, the IEP must be based on current, reliable and valid information. Let’s take a look at 10 sources of information to consider.

Special Education Assessments — Initially, these assessments help to determine if a student is eligible. Is there a disability, and does the student require specially designed instruction? These assessments also provide instructional information including student strengths, needs and recommendations for instruction and accommodations.

IEP Progress Monitoring Data — Upon implementation of the initial IEP, progress monitoring data is collected to demonstrate status of goal achievement, effective instructional approaches and the student’s growth rate. This data should inform subsequent present level statements, goal selection, performance criteria and selection of appropriate supports and service.

Other Assessments — Teams should update information that accurately reflects student’s present levels of performance. Districts use “benchmark assessments” to assess all students at their grade level throughout the school year (e.g. DIBELS, AIMSweb, and STAR). However, for students performing substantially below grade level, these assessments may be too challenging to accurately reflect what the student can do! If it’s established that the student did not meet his or her grade level benchmark (let’s say 4^th grade), the proper action would be to assess the student at 3^rd grade, then 2^nd grade and so on until student meets the benchmark for that grade. Utilize this process and you will certainly have a lot of current and empirical data on what the student CAN do!

Observations — Observations can help assess students’ functional performance in school settings, including how students generalize skills between the special and general education setting, follow classroom routines, engage in social interactions and manage themselves in the complex general education environment.

Student Input — Set aside time to discuss with students their strengths, interests, preferences and personal accomplishments prior to the meeting. Help students identify their needs, how to access help and their goals for the upcoming year. This strategy does double duty — IEPs will be informed by student input while students become increasingly more self-aware. Give students the opportunity to present their input in their own words during the meeting. This is both very powerful and empowering!

Parent Input — No one knows a child better than his or her parents. Contact parents prior to the IEP meeting to discuss input on their child’s strengths, needs, interests and any other information that they want to share. Having the opportunity to think about their input prior to the meeting may increase their participation at the meeting. At the very least, consider the useful information you obtain by simply asking the following question: “This will be a successful year for my child if________.”

Teacher Input — Classroom teachers have vital information about their students, yet may not know what they should contribute to the IEP. Ask teachers a few targeted questions such as:

What are the demands for this grade (level of independence; degree of writing, etc.)?
How does the student perform in these areas compared to classmates?
How do you address these discrepancies?
What do you want next year’s teacher to know about this student?

Grade Level Expectations — The team should be knowledgeable about grade level expectations in order to support a student’s involvement and progress in the curriculum. With this knowledge, the team can prioritize student needs and align the student’s goals, supports and services. Remember, the IEP must describe expected performance versus actual performance and make meaning of the gap!

Behavioral Data — From basic information such as attendance to more sophisticated data from behavioral intervention plans, behavioral data should be reviewed by teams. Rule of thumb: if concerning patterns emerge from behavioral data, the team should ask additional questions to determine if it is disability-related. Consider if a functional behavioral assessment could shed light on behavioral issues to be addressed in the IEP.

State Assessments — Increasingly, states are committed to focusing on growth models, allowing teams to determine if students are making progress over time. Regardless of the challenges inherent with state assessments, the team can examine this data to determine if the student is receiving the appropriate accommodations allowable during instruction and assessments.

Tips to Collect and Manage Data

Schools have a wealth of information on students; yet teams may find it difficult to organize and synthesize it all. Here are some tips:

Share the collection of data. Create a plan as to who will do what and when. This avoids gaps and redundancies.
Use technology to support collaboration. Many IEP software systems have the capacity for team members to share input. Or your district may use other platforms that allow teams to store and share information throughout the year (progress monitoring data, stakeholder input, etc.). Be sure to follow your district’s policies and procedures on protecting student privacy.
Develop sets of questions to obtain important information from students, parents and teachers. While everyone will have the opportunity to discuss input at the IEP meeting, providing questions before hand will help everyone to be better prepared.
Create ways to provide coverage so team members can do observations and collaborate around the IEP process.

Remember, the IEP is only as strong as the foundation on which it is built. Make sure teams collect and use multiple sources of data in order to “tell the right story”!

Developing IEP Goals? Check out core concepts and best practices

Read the Guide Now

What to Consider Before Switching School Data Systems

From the classroom to the business office, schools generate loads of data year-round. Adding technology to automate tedious tasks and improve processes has been on the top of many administrators’ “to-do” lists in recent years. However, it’s due to the sheer volume of these critical data points, and how rapidly they change in school districts, that makes changing software providers feel like an impossible undertaking.

If you’re anything like your peers, there will inevitably come a time when you’re at a crossroad with your current tech set-up and whether or not it’s time to switch vendors. Here are a few important aspects about the uniqueness of school district data that you should consider before making the decision to migrate or convert to a new system.

Role-based Permissions & Access to Data

Your district needs flexibility to define who has access to what information at any given time. This is due to the sensitive nature of student information, HR, finance and payroll data. So, whether you’re evaluating processes for the first time, or considering adopting new technology in your district, you’ll want to consider how much control you’ll gain or continue to have over data.

If a system can’t facilitate sophisticated user types and permissions, is it really going to work for a school district’s needs? For example, most teachers typically only have access to information related to students on their rosters; however, what happens when you have a nurse who should see all student information or a special teacher who should have access to just a few kids in a spectrum of classes not directly aligned with any particular uniform schedule?

Will you have the ability to grant and restrict access to data based on each individual user’s needs?

To take it a step further, can your potential new system of record map all of the data that’s been collected to the appropriate fields in the new records? If it’s generic corporate software… do those fields even exist out of the box? What happens to historical data and archived records?

Reporting & Data Formats

In order to have accurate reporting on the backend of your daily processes, you need to have correct data collection formats and processes implemented on the frontend. Otherwise, you end up spending tons of time reconciling reports and correcting errors for each submission throughout the year. It’s not that you’re trying to replace people with software, it’s that you want to free your people from tedious, repetitive, manual data entry and validation tasks to focus on the higher impact elements of their role within the district.

So, when your considering technology to improve your processes you want to avoid the pitfall of paper processes or generic software that wasn’t designed with K-12 as a core focus. Why? Because it slows down your data and limits your staff from being effective contributors on your team.

It’s because of the strict regulations and demands on data and reporting for local, state and federal agencies that it’s so important for your data collection to be clean to ensure accurate reporting.

6 Ingredients for Staff (and Student) Ownership in Education

Here’s something obvious but important: there’s a real difference between simply showing up and truly buying into the mission and vision of your organization. It’s true in business, and it’s true in schools. And in schools, cultivating employee ownership for that mission has an equally important partner: ensuring students are invested in their education.

The “why” is self-evident:

As an employee, I’m far more likely to pour my heart and soul into my work. I’ll come in early when needed, work hard, think about ways to improve. I’ll be more creative, go that extra mile, climb every mountain, give my projects that extra bit of spit and polish, keep learning how to do my job even better — because I care about making an impact and not just taking home a paycheck. (But sure, the paycheck matters, too.)
As a student, what I get out of a class will largely hinge on what I put into it. Case in point: in junior high — specifically in 8^th grade algebra — I was disengaged. I didn’t see the relevance of the subject. That education would make my life better hadn’t yet hit home. Math class felt like something that happened to me, an hour a day to be endured (that’s an indictment of MY state of mind at the time, not of math!). Contrast that with Political Science class, years later. It was far more difficult than algebra was, but I deeply cared about it. I was invested. So I buckled down, earned a ‘B’ (no mean feat, trust me), and still draw upon that class to understand the world today.

Over the past few years, Mountain Brook Schools in Birmingham, Alabama has been working to increase both staff and student engagement. In our recent podcast, we spoke with director of Instruction Missy Brooks and junior high principal Donald Clayton and they shared elements they’ve found crucial to building ownership.

Visibility & Transparency

It’s important for every staff member – teachers, administrators, custodians, paraprofessionals, everyone — to understand not just where they stand organizationally in the district, but how they each contribute to students’ education. Then, they need to see how the district is investing in them, as well as have a clear picture of the overall success of the mission.

“We’ve put in some structures so that everyone can see their place in the district. And when I say ‘place,’ I mean the investment in [them] and how important they are, so that we can achieve our purpose. Recently, we had a ‘State of the District,’ where our superintendent talked to us about all kinds of things, just trying to be very transparent, letting everybody know the financial situation of the district, etc.”
Missy Brooks

Staff Cohesion

Build a sense of community. Mountain Brook held a training day aimed at connecting people across buildings and teams. They formed cohorts of people across disciplines, grade levels and departments. The cohort leaders weren’t facilitators, but rather nurses, teachers, custodians, bookkeepers. Together, they had rapid-fire Q&A (What’s your favorite movie? What advice would you give your middle school self?), physical group challenges and other ways to get to know one another.

The result? Greater commonality and a strengthened shared vision. Non-certified staff expressed that they were pleased to be included in the day. New employees loved the chance to get to know colleagues better. And it gave them a chance to speak into what’s happening in the district.

“Leaders can ask great questions to get input, but having opportunities like this to input your personality, input who you are, into the whole organization and find connections within it, that’s an input that I probably didn’t see….but I can tell there’s a lot of fruit from that.”
Donald Clayton

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

White paper: “The Power of Failure: Encouraging Teachers to Take Risks in a Risk-Free Environment” – what it looks like to foster a growth mindset among teachers and staff.

Listening

Social media abounds with inspirational quotes and memes about the leadership quality of listening — for good reason. Teachers and staff want to be heard. Students do, too. Through working with the Schlechty Center, Mountain Brook learned that students didn’t feel that their voice was being listened to, and set out to actively change that by:

Systematically collecting student input and collaboratively combing through the data to understand and act on it
Interviewing a student on stage at the superintendent’s State of the District presentation
Modifying clubs and activity periods according to student input
Working with teachers and students to design instruction based on students’ stated needs (The result: students excited about grammar!)

4. Co-created Definitions

Giving students a voice is key to generating student ownership. But what does that look like? Co-creating a definition of student voice is key. The team at Mountain Brook spent time at each school to ask teachers and students to define student voice. Then, they looked for common themes which they incorporated into the final definition.

“The teachers really did feel heard, and when they saw those common phrases and common words appear in the definition and saw how common those things were across the district, in every school, they felt empowered. ‘You know what? This definition is ours. It’s not something that somebody has given us.’”
Missy Brooks

Meaningful Goals

Want to get everyone on board? Set goals that depend on everyone’s contribution. Communicate clear objectives that an entire district can take action toward and observe measurable progress.

While everyone may work toward staff and student ownership in their own way, those co-created definitions help everyone aim for the same thing. Ideally, these will result in cascaded school, team and individual goals. “I use the idea of a highway,” Missy said. Having collected all kinds of input from stakeholders across the district, the central office sets the guard rails within which the work of the district happens. “But in the middle of that, [each school] can get there how they need to get there with their faculties and with all the people in their buildings.”

Differentiated, Individual Professional Development

Because teachers and staff have taken ownership of Mountain Brook’s mission, when Missy visits a school building, it doesn’t feel like a ‘gotcha’ — it’s a collaborative experience. And because every building has its own personality, what Crestline Elementary is doing to support the mission of the district, for example, will look different from Mountain Brook Junior High — as will the professional learning that’s needed.

“We’re more connected then we’ve ever been. I know we’re more connected with our students. We’re more connected to one another, because there’s power in working on the same thing together. We’re also more aware of the talents and skills that are in our district, and in particular in our building. That’s not just with our adults, but with our students. Seeing our students as individuals who can help the learning process, who have ideas about what this looks like, that’s a big step and a neat place to be at, where everybody looks at students as resources as well, and data points to help figure out, ‘How do we get to the next goal, how do we get to the next place?’” – Donald Clayton
Victor Hernandez, Corpus Christi ISD, Director for Instructional Support

Employee Onboarding: Improve First Impressions & Lasting Retention

For K-12 Human Resources offices, the task of staffing the district for another school year needs to be a two-sided coin, one side focused on getting (recruiting and selection), and the other side focused on keeping (onboarding and retention). Finding the top employees for your district is a complex and time-consuming project, but it is only part of the job. It’s just as important to focus on keeping your district’s top employees engaged and satisfied with their position at the district.

In some organizations, employee onboarding is limited to an orientation event that lasts maybe a few hours on the first 3 or 4 days on the job, but it is really more of an afterthought — the formalities that need to take place once the recruiting and hiring process is over. However, your district’s new teacher orientation process can make a huge impact on the district atmosphere and your colleagues’ regular performance.

Whether thoughtfully crafted or simply superficial, your onboarding process affects the quality of your district’s relationship with its staff and the quality of the staff’s performance in a number of areas, including:

Continuity of services
Consistency in delivery
Reliability & dependability
Maintaining the culture
Cost of replacement training, in dollars and time

While a high rate of employee turnover can result from a number of different factors, making an effort to improve your onboarding process in specific ways can drastically improve employee engagement and retention in your district.

What is Onboarding?

Onboarding is the combination of orientation and induction. The Society for Human Resource Management offers definitions for these two terms:

Orientation

“The introduction of employees to their jobs, co-workers and the organization by providing them with information regarding such items as policies, procedures, company history, goals, culture and work rules.”

Induction

“Programs designed to introduce and acclimate newly hired employees into the organization.”

While orientation and induction make up onboarding, onboarding needs to expand beyond the orientation event for it to be effective. An employee’s onboarding should start upon their acceptance of the job offer and continue through much of the first year, adding engaging practices and knowledge of district culture to the standard processes they learned on their first few days. Effective onboarding needs to be a shared experience.

The Productivity of Pride

Author and onboarding expert David Lee says, “The term ‘Onboarding’ refers to the process of integrating new employees into the organization, of preparing them to succeed at their job, and to become fully engaged, productive members of the organization.”

Fully-engaged, productive employees offer tangible benefits to your district’s overall health and recruiting budget. If you can convert your new hires into engaged district stakeholders, your district will enjoy higher employee retention. This means your district will spend less time and money on recruiting and hiring, orientation, travel and compliance-related regulations.

However, converting new hires into district stakeholders is easier said than done. You must learn to see your employees eye-to-eye and convince them to take up responsibility for the district’s cause alongside of the administrative staff.

Lee offers one excellent sentiment to strive to create during your onboarding process: pride.

You can be proud to work here.” If you can communicate this notion to your staff, both verbally (with support for your claim) and through the quality of the onboarding experience, you’ll be on your way to converting your new employees into district ambassadors.

Your Objectives for Onboarding

As a school district, you have specific takeaways you want your new employees to understand after going through the onboarding process. In “Onboarding: The First Line of Engagement,” Martin and Bourke offer five benefits organizations want to achieve through onboarding:

Ensure new employees are engaged and assimilated into the company’s culture
Help your new employees become productive faster
Increase retention of new employees
Improve the experience your organization offers via more effective employees
Save on long-term costs

The first two are obvious and important. You need to bring your new hires into the fold of the district staff. And this isn’t just for their own sake. A Texas Instruments study showed that employees reached “full productivity” two months sooner when their onboarding process was fully attended to, as compared to those whose was not.

A lot of ground can be gained or lost in two months. After two months, nearly half of a semester is over. Employees have already established their opinions on their position within the district, and students have certainly solidified their opinions of the district’s staff. After two months of employment, the battle for an employee’s engagement has largely already been won or lost.

However, an effective onboarding process affects more than the productivity of your employees. Improving your onboarding experience also improves your district’s employee retention and long-term recruiting costs.

Lee cites several examples of organizations that reduced their employee turnover by improving their onboarding experience. Hunter Douglas reduced their employee turnover from 70% to 16% in just six months. Likewise, Designer Blinds reduced their annual turnover from a staggering 200% to less than 8%, which directly translated to a reduction of their recruiting budget.

However, the true cost of something isn’t always in dollars and cents. The cost of losing your best employees to voluntary attrition can also be seen in:

Lower morale of remaining employees
Questionable supervision inquiries
Reduced public satisfaction
Service or performance declines and delays
A change in organizational reputation

Your Employees’ Objectives for Onboarding

So how do you improve your onboarding experience? One of the biggest mistakes you can make in your employee onboarding is to take a one-sided approach to the process. Another is trying to cram too much into too little of a time frame. Two parties are involved in the onboarding process: the district and the new hires. You must take adequate time to acknowledge the needs and wants of both parties in order to have an effective process.

Often the time crunch of compacting onboarding activities into only a few hours or a couple of days causes district staff to overload and overwhelm their newest talent at a time when those recruits should be most excited and enthusiastic.

If you want to change your district’s employee engagement and retention, invert your onboarding process and focus on employees’ questions first.

Ask yourself what your individual employees want to know. Then ask yourself what the district wants its employees to know. Your employees’ questions may seem secondary compared to the high-level expectations the district needs to set, but if the employees’ questions aren’t answered, they might be too preoccupied to focus on what the district is communicating.

In “What New Employees Really Need to Know,” Lin Grensing-Pophal shares three categories of questions on new employees’ minds, as well as the order in which they should be addressed:

The Things That Affect Employees Personally

“Where should I park? What should I wear?”
“Where should I report? What are my work hours?”
“Will I be expected to work overtime? To work evenings? Weekends?”
“How does the phone system work? When will my email be active?”
“What’s my network login and password? Do I get keys?”

The Things That Affect Employees as a Member of Their Department

“Who will I be working with?”
“Who are the people I need to get to know in the department and in other departments?”
“How will my work be judged?”
“Are there opportunities to serve on special committees or task forces and how can I find out more?”
“If I have ideas, suggestions or concerns, what channels exist to share those concerns?”
“How do people prefer to communicate in this organization? (Face to face? By e-mail? Phone?)”

The Things That Affect Employees as a Member of the Organization

“What are the organization’s mission, vision and values (and how does my department fit into this)?”
“Do we have a strategic plan? What does it entail?”
“What are the major external issues that impact us?”
“What are our priorities? What are our long-range goals?”
“What are employees rewarded and recognized for?”

As Maslow from your psychology class has suggested, if you can meet the more foundational, immediate “safety-security-survival” needs of new employees, they will be in a better frame of mind to consider their place within the district at large and be more receptive and engaged for your district agendas.

Onboarding Tip:

Focusing on your employees’ needs first will guarantee that they are engaged in the onboarding process from the start. By engaging them, they’ll become better assimilated into your district staff, and therefore become productive faster. Productive employees are generally more satisfied with their roles in the district, and will likely remain at the district longer, improving district performance and saving on recruiting expenses.

Engaging Your Employees During the Onboarding Process

A Gallup study shows nearly 70% of your teachers are not engaged in their jobs. That’s troubling news for American education.

Many district administrators balk at a statistic that drastic, believing it cannot be true of their district. But according to the survey of 7,200 teachers, 31% of teachers are engaged, 56% are not engaged (although satisfied) and 13% are actively disengaged.

Gallup defines these terms as follows:

Engaged: “Involved in, enthusiastic about, and committed to their work . . . knowing the scope of their jobs and constantly looking for new and better ways to achieve outcomes”

Not Engaged: “May be satisfied with their jobs, but they are not emotionally connected to their workplace and unlikely to devote much discretionary effort to their work”

Actively Disengaged: “Dissatisfied with their workplace and likely to be spreading negativity to their coworkers”

Naturally, any organization would want its employees to be engaged with their daily job and company culture. The benefits or the costs of engaged or disengaged employees are obvious. However, the burden of K-12 school districts to engage its employees is far greater than increasing a profit line.

Any district employee — especially a teacher — who is “enthusiastic about, and committed to their work” is significantly more likely to make a positive impact on a student’s growth. We need our students to be surrounded by a faculty and staff who are “looking for new and better ways to achieve outcomes.”

Yet according to Gallup’s sampling results, less than a third of K-12 teachers in the U.S. are actually engaged with their roles in their districts. How can we work to correct this?

Fostering Engagement for Retention

The word ENGAGE is a handy mnemonic for remembering six key actions you can take to foster engagement in your district and increase employee retention — and not only with new hires.

Expanded recognition
Networking availability and encouragement
Generated “input for impact” dialogue
Access to resources
Giving your time
Evaluations made often

E. Expanded recognition

Employee recognition should be given across all levels of the district. Employees should feel welcomed as a member of the team by their peers, as valuable assets by their immediate supervisor, and as individuals by their district administration.

Establish programs for effective recognition that increase the number of persons highlighted, such as rewards or employee spotlights on district newsletters or allowing peer “high-fives” to be given via social media, as examples.

N. Networking availability and encouragement

Networking is important as a career- and relationship-building opportunity. If an employee doesn’t have the chance to build a relationship with other members of the district (on multiple different levels), then that employee probably won’t be engaged with his or her role in the district.

Here are some potential networking options:

Committees and task forces
Work team projects
Division or department challenges
Group wellness activities
Community service projects
Campus renovation days
Group volunteer days
Staff meal prep
Interest-based outings

G. Generated “input for impact” dialogue

Most employers collect information on why employees leave, exit interviews. Why not collect information on why employees choose to stay? Kathryn Tyler of SHRM HR Magazine writes about the value of interviewing employees who have chosen to stay at your district in her article “Who Will Stay and Who Will Go?”

Start with the top performers and influencers of your district. Find out what it is about your district that engages them. Not only will this interaction further their own engagement by asking their valued opinion, but it will help you to understand how to engage the rest of your staff as well.

This will also give you the opportunity to collect data to determine critical timeframes for engaging employees in your district, prior to when your data indicates an upswing in voluntary departures. In their survey, Gallup uncovered correlations between how experienced a teacher was and their level of engagement.

Insights like these can help you make informed decisions for your district.

A. Access to resources

Remember, engaged employees are “constantly looking for new and better ways to achieve outcomes.” It would be hard for an employee to innovate or improve the impact of their job if they don’t have access to valuable resources. You need to equip your district’s staff, so that they can equip your district’s students.

Here are just a few examples of resources you could provide to your employees:

Cover class or job responsibilities to observe a peer or meet to collaborate
Send to a relevant workshop, class, clinic or presentation
Nominate for a committee or team
Bring in a specialist, presenter or program
Introduce to an expert, colleague or organization
Provide web links, videos, newsletters or trainers

G. Giving your time

Your district’s administrators and supervisors need to genuinely and generously give time to their employees, especially in the onboarding period. Spend this time giving employees validation by slowing yourself down to listen to their needs and ideas and to build real relationships with them. If you meet your employees on a level of respect, first as a person and second as an employee, you’ll stand a far better chance of earning their respect and keeping them in your district.

E. Evaluations made often

Effective evaluation is like effective practice. You need to commit to regular evaluations so you can understand the status and see the growth of each employee, and they can understand your expectations.

Early in an employee’s career, frequent evaluations will help establish engagement between you and your new staff member, and it will help you track their productivity. Over time, as the employee demonstrates progress and mastery in their role, you can distribute your evaluations less frequently throughout the year, so that you can focus more time on new employees. Noticing that you are “loosening the leash” a bit by spacing out evaluations demonstrates trust, which in turn increases the employee’s motivation and engagement.

If you can form a habit of talking with your employees — not at them — early and often in their careers, and provide the necessary guidance and resources they need to grow in their role, your district will enjoy and retain a more fully engaged team.

Building Relationships Through Onboarding

If you’ve made it this far, you understand the impact the onboarding experience has on your district’s health and employee retention. You understand the value of instilling in your employees pride for their roles within your district, and you have some tips on how to improve the interaction and relationships built through the onboarding experience.

In “Onboarding New Employees: Maximizing Success,” Tayla Bauer offers the “Four C’s” that should be present in all successful onboarding processes:

“Compliance is the lowest level and includes teaching employees basic legal and policy-related rules and regulations.”
“Clarification refers to ensuring that employees understand their new jobs and all related expectations.”
“Culture is a broad category that includes providing employees with a sense of organizational norms-both formal and informal.”
“Connection refers to the vital interpersonal relationships and information networks that new employees must establish.”

If your district’s onboarding process only lasts the first day or two on the job, do you believe you’ll have enough time to truly express the culture of the district? Will you have enough time to establish legitimate connections between new employees and their peers, supervisors and the district administration?

Probably not. But unfortunately, that’s what happens in many school districts. However, according to a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, approximately 46% of those surveyed began their onboarding between accepting the employment offer and day 1 on the job.

With only a day or two slated for onboarding procedures, many employers would only find time for the first two C’s necessary for successful onboarding. Expanding the onboarding process before day one can help give you the time you need to cover all areas pertinent to your employees’ assimilation into the district.

“The first few days on the job can be crammed full of information, but if you’ve been able to take advantage of starting prior to day one, the amount of information you need to cover during this period will be relatively less…. This provides you the opportunity to go more in depth into certain topics than you would with programs of shorter duration.” – SilkRoad Technology

In addition to starting the onboarding process before your employees’ first day on the job, you should extend your onboarding practices after the first day as well. In fact, you should make an effort to deliberately onboard your new hires throughout their whole first semester or year. The same SHRM survey indicated 32% of employers surveyed extended their onboarding activities from 8 days on the job up to during the first 6 months.

“Studies have shown that extending onboarding beyond the first day, preferably from 3 months to one year, can significantly improve the overall experience and the resulting engagement and retention of your employee base.” – SilkRoad Technology

Here are some examples of extended onboarding activities that enable you to focus on before and throughout an employee’s first school year:

Additional job-specific training in smaller chunks
Benefit decision-making, enrollment resources and tools
Confirmation of compliance notifications and training
Initial evaluation event and document tracking
Connecting with mentors and other employees
Other performance goal documentation
Providing feedback to the employer on the new employee’s onboarding experience

Common Barriers to Expanding

If better onboarding and an emphasis on culture are so important, why don’t more employers take steps to implement these changes in their districts? Districts often cite the following obstacles:

Time — can’t spare workers from their jobs
Insufficient HR or other staff to implement
Resources focused on completing paperwork and transactional new hire processing
Finances
Lack of Senior Admin support
Not enough annual new hires to emphasize new practices

While these barriers do pose problems for districts, onboarding technology with pricing scalable to the size of your district can relieve most of these challenges.

Using Technology to Automate Onboarding Processes

By using recruiting software, you can automatically gather information as your new hires pre-board online. Automating these basic steps can save a great deal of time in the onboarding process, allowing your HR team to focus on the rest of their duties, even during recruiting and onboarding season.

Then, by getting the more tedious parts of the process out of the way ahead of time, you can spend your employees’ first few days giving tours, conducting group exercises and building relationships that will strengthen your individual employees’ engagement in your district.

And by improving engagement and thereby increasing employee retention, your district could see a significant decrease in your annual recruiting costs. In “Fully on-board: Getting the most from your talent in the first year,” Martin and Lombardi offer the five key functions that “best-in-class” employers utilize in their onboarding processes:

Reporting tools that monitor which employees have completed what forms and tasks
Tools that leverage data collected in the recruiting process
Tools that track progress against development/career plans
Tools that automatically trigger emails when status changes from applicant to employee
“Smart forms” that pre-populate fields with built-in routing/workflow

Using Technology to Promote Your Culture

The advantages of technology for accomplishing the “paperwork” side of onboarding are obvious. But could your district also use technology to transmit culture?

“Employees who know what to expect from their company’s culture and work environment make better decisions that are more aligned with the accepted practices of the company.” – SilkRoad Technology

Creating an awareness of your culture will help new hires, current staff, students and parents understand what to expect and how to identify with your district.

Consider content, such as a video, on your district website or social media channels to welcome newcomers and communicate what the district culture is really like.

Several districts, including Dallas ISD, Atlanta Public Schools, Goshen Central School District and Des Moines Public Schools use Pinterest to share resources and communicate the culture people can expect to find in their schools. Efforts like this to produce engaging content and to utilize media channels relevant to the people in your district shows that your district cares about its culture and the people within it.

Better Onboarding = Greater Student Success

Time and attention open opportunities for recognition. Recognition increases employee motivation. Higher motivation increases employee engagement. Higher engagement increases commitment. Higher commitment increases discretionary effort, loyalty and retention. Higher discretionary effort, loyalty and retention increases employee productivity and performance achievement. Higher employee productivity and performance achievement increases student success. It’s all related.

Self-Evaluation Worksheet

Want to see how you’re doing in your district? Try this onboarding self-evaluation checklist and scoresheet to document possible next steps for your district as you work to enhance your district’s onboarding process.

We recommend completing the Self Evaluation Checklist first and filling out the “Doing this currently” column. Then review the Scoresheet to see if your answers rate as “basic,” “advanced” or “enhanced” on the scoresheet afterward.

Ready to streamline the onboarding process in your district? Learn More

Focus Groups: Your Secret Weapon for Enhancing Professional Development Program Evaluation

Focus groups (FGs) — essentially interactive, conversational group interviews — are an underappreciated data collection strategy. When used well, they can provide rich, nuanced and actionable data for your professional development program evaluation. They are fairly easy to add to your repertoire and don’t require extensive planning or resources to carry out. They are often used in other contexts (e.g., market research, usability research) and are flexible enough to be used for different purposes (e.g., to inform the design of a product or service, to collect feedback about a website, to test potential survey questions or dig deeper into survey responses). FGs are best used along with other data collection strategies, such as surveys or interviews.

Possible Scenarios for Using Focus Groups

For professional development program evaluation. I’ve used FGs as part of a plan to evaluate a professional learning program such as Mentoring and New Teacher Induction. In addition to feedback surveys used right after our New Teacher Induction Academy, I used FGs comprised of new teachers and mentors to better understand how our model was working and inform decisions about improving our practices. I have also used FGs to follow up with teachers months after a professional learning course to learn how they were implementing new instructional practices and their perspectives on the impact on student learning.

For professional learning needs assessment. I used focus groups with teachers as part of a larger effort to study a district’s needs and readiness around issues of equity, diversity and inclusion. Along with other data collection strategies, the FGs gave us perspective on what teachers in different buildings understood about these topics and about the district’s effort to address them, where they were struggling, and where they felt they needed support and learning.

Using Focus Groups in Conjunction with Surveys

Using focus groups prior to a survey.

Using open-ended questions and exploring a range of attitudes from FG participants can inform the design of survey questions – for example, questions that may be used on a districtwide professional learning needs assessment. Using FGs in this way means to

…engage in a moderated discussion of the survey topic or construct in hopes of learning more about it as well as eliciting input from participants on issues that should be included in survey questions. Focus group participants, especially if they are either members of the respondent population or closely connected to the topic of study, can provide greater understanding of a topic and lead researchers to explore aspects of a topic that might otherwise be overlooked (Robinson & Leonard, 2019 p. 78).

Using focus groups after a survey.

FGs can facilitate deeper understanding of why and how survey respondents answered certain questions the way they did. Perhaps participants answered a few questions on a feedback survey about what they learned in a professional development course, but now you want to explore more about how they are using that learning, and whether they feel that learning is important to their practice or impacting students.

Common Questions and Concerns

People often ask, “Is this a scientific approach?” and then add, “After all, small groups aren’t representative of all teachers (or all parents, etc.).” Think about the real concerns behind that question. People often dismiss the idea of FGs for data collection because they don’t produce numerical data. What people are really asking is whether or not we can believe what we learn from FGs, whether the data we get constitutes sufficient, reasonable and believable evidence of what we are trying to measure. Most people are not used to making sense of qualitative data. We don’t use statistics for qualitative data. We analyze text and then work to determine whether our findings are indeed trustworthy, credible data that can help answer the program evaluation questions that were posed.

People also ask about anonymity. Using FGs is not an anonymous approach, and therefore may not be the best data collection strategy for the most sensitive topics. That said, the invitation to participate in the group can indicate that the conversation that takes place during the session should be considered confidential, and the moderator can reiterate this request at the outset of the session.

Challenges and Limitations

Typical FG challenges involve group dynamics, personalities, strong opinions and politics. Some of these can be addressed with good planning: selecting participants carefully (i.e., having separate FGs for teachers, parents or administrators to mitigate power differentials) and having the moderator set out clear expectations for participation. The moderator can also have a set of techniques for redirecting conversation, shutting down a dominator and encouraging quieter participants to engage.

FGs cannot measure the full spectrum of perspectives of a population (i.e., all teachers in a district) and are best used with other data collection strategies to obtain a robust picture of what is happening and how people are experiencing your professional learning programs.

Setting up for Success with Focus Groups

Focus group questions or prompts.

You may want to develop questions collaboratively with other stakeholders. Consider your evaluation questions and let them guide what data you need to collect from FGs. Don’t limit yourself to just open-ended questions. Prompts can also be lesson plans, data (achievement, attendance, demographic or discipline), student work samples, other classroom artifacts that participants react to and discuss.

Focus Group roles.

Focus groups generally have a moderator, 1-2 notetakers, and ideally about 6-8 participants. It’s important to think carefully about what will be expected in each role.

Moderator
The moderator facilitates the FG and directs the conversation. Moderators introduce the FG by sharing the purpose and structure of the session with participants. They may ask for permission to record the session. They will pose the questions or prompts participants will discuss during the session, and they will use probes – questions designed to stimulate deeper thinking from participants. Examples of probes are: “Can you say more about that? What else can you share about that? What made you feel that way?”

The moderator will let participants know whether they should wait their turn before speaking, or whether they should jump into the conversation whenever they have something to say. The moderator will let them know the expectations such as whether they should offer just their own opinions or experiences, or whether they should feel free to agree and disagree and build off of what others have said. The moderator will meet with the notetaker(s) to review the focus groups prompts and directions for note taking.

Note-takers
Note-takers are not typically participants in the FG. They are there to capture as much of the conversation as possible, and may also capture observational data about participants and responses. They may note when people smile or frown, when heads nod in agreement or shake in disagreement, when voices are raised, or other non-verbal information that will help the program evaluator make sense of the data. It can be helpful to have two notetakers: one who captures the conversation only, and one who captures the non-conversation data.

One alternative or supplement to note-takers is a conference call transcription service. You can dial into a conference call number, have the conversation recorded (as long as you set a phone close enough to participants), and the transcription sent to you via email. These can be a bit costly, but offer professional transcriptions that ease the pressure on notetakers.

Participants
Participants are the primary conversation-makers. They respond to the FG prompts and to each other as directed by the moderator.

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

[TIMELINE] Education, Technology and Professional Learning: An abridged history as professional learning moves into the 21st century.

Logistics.

FGs often involve “like groups.” When I conducted an evaluation of an athletics program, I held separate focus groups for coaches, parents and teachers. When I conducted a needs assessment study, I held focus groups at different schools, with teachers in similar grade levels. When evaluating a professional development program, you may want to separate participants by school, subject area, or level (e.g., elementary, middle, high). People are often more forthcoming and comfortable sharing their opinions and experiences with people they know, or at least people with whom they have something in common.

Find a place where people will be comfortable talking. This could be a classroom, a professional development meeting space or even a conference room at a restaurant, hotel or other off-site location. I specifically avoided the Board of Education meeting room at one district because I knew some people didn’t feel comfortable there. It was a more formal, less relaxed space with its large podium, raised semi-circle bench in front of the room and many microphones.

If possible, set up chairs in a circle with no tables. This removes the physical barriers, and encourages people to stay engaged with each other. They can see each other’s faces and body language at all times and can react to that, knowing when to enter the conversation. The notetaker(s) may be seated outside of the circle as not to distract participants or make them uncomfortable.

It’s also a nice gesture to offer light refreshments for participants. Having a few minutes at the beginning of the session for participants to grab a snack and beverage also allows for some small talk that can help loosen people up and get them ready to be actively engaged in conversation around the designated topics.

Are Focus Groups Worth the Effort?

Using FGs as a primary strategy for professional development program evaluation means we have the potential to learn more than we ever could through the use of surveys alone. More importantly, the qualitative and interactive nature of FGs can help us capture data that is different from what any other data collection strategy can yield, and will give us much deeper insight into how people experience professional learning.

For more on using focus groups for professional development program evaluation, see my free guide for conducting focus groups, and my in-depth article: Professional Development Program Evaluation for the Win!

Robinson, S.B., & Leonard, K.F. (2019). Designing Quality Survey Questions. SAGE Publications.

School HR Can Have Freedom While Staying Connected

Being connected doesn’t mean relinquishing your control. Even though it’s common for school district HR to operate separately from school Finance, there’s still so much they depend on each other for.

When you have the right processes and systems in place to support your efforts, you can connect HR and Finance at all the optimal touchpoints while empowering each department to manage their unique data.

You can swim in the same pool without sharing the same goggles.

HR and Finance share a lot of data, but each look at the information through totally different lenses. It’s a mistake to try to force either department to use a system or process that wasn’t designed specifically for their unique workflows.

If strong enough practices are in place, you can create a workflow where HR can own compensation and benefit information while Finance still controls funding, budget and payroll processes. Connect school HR and Finance using a system with the following:

A K-12 specific chart of accounts as its foundation
Configurable pay structures that support instructional/classified/administrative staff compensation & payroll
District specific organizational management that facilitates district-wide and campus-specific positions
Separate job role from job title and allocate unique PCNs, locations and permissions for position control that works for K-12

All of this works together to provide complete control and transparency to all sides of the school district business office. Beyond that, when information is in real-time and accurate it becomes trustworthy. Not only does this improve the working relationship between HR and finance, but it also elevates the trust between employer and employee.

Trust and transparency across a district can be as exciting as 4^th of July fireworks.

It’s a widely known challenge that school district staff are often skeptical of the how, what, when and why behind their paychecks.

When school administration processes prioritize transparency, the business office isn’t the only group to benefit. That information can then be shared at the employee level and then a teacher, who’s also a coach can finally understand exactly what they’re being paid and when. Eliminating the stress of waiting for a physical envelope to make its way to their inbox to address any questions or concerns, when it’s ultimately too late.

This is why school districts are reconsidering just how divided the responsibilities across HR and Finance can and should be. School administrators are finding that automating embedded digital workflows with role-based responsibilities and notifications is connecting HR and Finance at all the most important points in their processes.

You can fortify district-wide operations with flexibility and accountability.

“Don’t Pass the Trash” Laws & School Districts

If there’s one thing everyone in education can agree on, it’s that protecting students should be a top priority for school districts.

And yet, anecdotes abound about school districts allowing (or even encouraging) abusive educators to resign rather than face an internal investigation or legal action. When this happens, especially when there are confidential separation agreements that include incentives like positive letters of reference or financial benefits, other districts may unknowingly hire that educator, putting more students at risk. It’s a cycle — abuse, dismissal, rehire, abuse — known as “passing the trash,” and there’s no monitoring at the federal level to keep it from happening.

The 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act stipulates that any K-12 organization receiving federal funding should take steps to prevent predatory teachers from finding new jobs in education. But the federal Department of Education has no authority to mandate, direct or control state or district compliance with that provision.

That means it’s up to individual states to step up and enact legislation. S.E.S.A.M.E., an organization focused on stopping educator sexual abuse and harassment, has been actively working with states to adopt the S.E.S.A.M.E. Act. As of July 2019, they have successfully helped four states pass laws modeled after the act in as many years.

So, which states have enacted “Don’t Pass the Trash” laws?

States with “Don’t Pass the Trash” Laws

Most states have laws in place mandating certain requirements in the school district hiring process — background checks, fingerprinting, etc. For the purposes of this post, we’re focusing on states which have enacted laws to take a tougher stance against “passing the trash” to prevent abusive educators who might otherwise slip through the cracks.

Specifically, this post will provide an overview of laws relating to the disclosure of investigations or allegations which may not have resulted in a criminal conviction, or may not have been reported to law enforcement or the State Department of Education at all. For that reason, we will not cover legislation such as the 2017 Texas law that made it a felony for a superintendent or principal to intentionally fail to report a predatory teacher to the Texas Education Agency.

This post is not intended to be a comprehensive legislative review or offer legal advice. We always recommend securing specific legal advice from your district legal counsel or state school board association legal team to ensure that your hiring process is compliant.

Washington – Chapter 28A.400, Section 303, enacted 2004

Washington state was the first to enact a “Don’t Pass the Trash” law. While the state already had laws requiring background checks for school district applicants, the legislature recognized that these checks are generally limited to criminal convictions — letting educators whose actions were never reported to law enforcement slip through the cracks.

So, in 2004, the state determined that “additional safeguards are necessary in the hiring of school district employees to ensure the safety of Washington’s school children. In order to provide the safest educational environment for children, school districts must provide known information regarding employees’ sexual misconduct when those employees attempt to transfer to different school districts.” – Chapter 28A.400, Section 303

The law requires that applicants allow the hiring school district to request information from previous school employers — even those out-of-state — about past sexual misconduct and physical or verbal abuse. The applicant’s current and past employers must provide the requested information and related documentation within twenty business days. Furthermore, the applicant’s employers are protected from civil liability for the disclosure as long as they acted in good faith.

In addition, school districts cannot enter into any contract, separation agreement or bargaining agreement that has the effect of hiding information about misconduct — although information about unsubstantiated allegations can still be expunged.

Oregon – HB 2062; Chapter 93, effective 2010

In 2008, an investigation revealed that 47 Oregon schools had made “Pass the Trash” deals from 2003 to 2008. In response, the Oregon State Legislature passed HB 2062 in 2009, although the law did not take effective until July 1, 2010.

Like the Washington law, HB 2062 mandated thorough applicant vetting and prohibited confidentiality agreements that could sweep misconduct under the rug. In addition, it requires that any school employee who has reasonable cause to believe misconduct has occurred make a report to their supervisor or other individual designated by the school board — and mandates that any staff member or student submitting a report in good faith shall not face retaliation.

Pennsylvania – Act 168, enacted 2014

Act 168 of 2014 requires that candidates go through the Sexual Misconduct/Abuse Disclosure process before they can be hired for a position involving direct contact with children.

Candidates must complete an employment history disclosure form to identify their current employer, all of the school entities they have been employed by, and any employers where the applicant was in a position working with children. The hiring school district must contact each of these organizations directly and send them a form developed by the PA Department of Education — a phone call is not sufficient. Past employers must then disclose information and have immunity from civil and criminal liability unless they knowingly share false information.

The law also bans education organizations from entering agreements that could suppress information related to abuse or sexual misconduct or interfere with reporting.

Connecticut – Public Act 16-67, enacted 2016

In response to the ESSA provision, Connecticut legislators unanimously passed Public Act 16-67 in 2016. The law aims to identify potential predators earlier in the hiring process.

Previously, state law required only that school districts make a good faith effort to contact applicants’ former employers to obtain “information and recommendations which may be relevant to the [applicant’s] fitness for employment.” That statute is still in place, although a “good faith effort” has been more clearly defined. In addition, school districts are required to obtain applicants’ written authorization to communicate with current and former school and child-contact employers and the State Department of Education.

The hiring school district can contact the listed organizations by telephone or written communications, so long as they use the form developed by the State Department of Education. Regardless of the communication method, the current and former employers have five business days to answer three specific questions concerning allegations against the applicant of abuse, neglect and sexual misconduct.

Wisconsin – Act 130, passed Dec 2017

In 2017, Wisconsin passed Senate Bill 253, now known as Act 130. This bill amended a state statute to broaden its definition of immoral conduct to include:

“Assisting a school employee, contractor, or agent to obtain a new job in a school or with a local educational agency, as defined in 20 USC 7801 (30), if the individual knows or has a reasonable suspicion to believe that the school employee, contractor, or agent committed a sex offense, as defined in s. 301.45 (1d) (b), and the victim was a minor or a pupil.” – Act 130

The statute does have two exceptions:

If the assistance “is the transmittal of administrative and personnel files”, or
If the information the individual knows has been reported to law enforcement, and law enforcement has closed any resulting case or investigation without a conviction.

Nevada – AB362, enacted 2017

The home state of S.E.S.A.M.E. unanimously passed AB362, also called the SESAME Law, in 2017. The law has many characteristics similar to the laws passed in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

Applicants must disclose past allegations and tell hiring school districts if they left their job (or had a license suspended or revoked) while there were pending allegations. Applicants who provide false information would be guilty of a misdemeanor. They must also provide written authorization for current and previous employers to release information about their employment, so that school districts can share information about sexual misconduct investigations.

Finally, the law also prohibits districts from entering into agreements to keep investigations under wraps.

New Jersey – Safer Schools Bill S414, adopted 2018

On April 11th, 2018 Governor Murphy signed the Safer Schools Bill S414 into law. Under the law, school districts must conduct a thorough review of an applicant’s employment history over the past twenty years. They must contact former and current employers and request information regarding child abuse and sexual misconduct allegations. In addition, the applicant must provide a written statement disclosing any such allegations.

If an employee is dismissed or allowed to resign after an allegation of abuse, the school district must disclose this information when providing references to other school districts or when responding to a potential employer’s request for information about said employee. Otherwise, the district has third-party liability for failure to disclose and is liable for damages.

In addition, education organizations cannot sign termination agreements that prohibit them from discussing or reporting information related to a report of suspected child abuse or sexual misconduct.

Maryland – HB486, enacted 2019

On April 18, 2019, Governor Hogan approved House Bill 486, a law mandating that school districts and other education organizations perform more thorough applicant vetting, effective July 1, 2019. Similar to other laws based on the S.E.S.A.M.E. model, school districts must conduct an employment review beyond a criminal check, and request information from applicants and their previous employers.

Applicants must answer a series of questions about whether they were ever the subject of a child sexual abuse or misconduct investigation or left a district while any allegations were pending, as well as provide a list of current and former employers. These organizations have twenty calendar days to complete and submit the form to the prospective employer.

Implications for School Districts

Despite the differences in language between these laws, they’re all focused on one goal: providing an additional layer of protection for students. Providing a safe, supportive learning environment for every student is of utmost importance, so it’s heartening to see that more states are enacting laws to provide greater transparency between school systems and keep student safety at the forefront.

But the laws do create more paperwork for school districts — both those who need to hire new employees, and those responding to requests for information. If you’re in a state that has implemented a “Don’t Pass the Trash” law, or similar legislation has been introduced, it’s crucial to have a system set up to manage the forms you need to send and receive from other districts about applicants. Plus, it’s important that you can easily access employee records, even for former staff members — you may have an avalanche of requests coming your way, especially if your district is large or has a high turnover rate.

Remember, documentation is key — you need to have records that your district followed the law to the letter.

Establishing Baseline Data in an IEP: 3 Steps to Taking a Student’s Performance Temperature

*Key points from Carol Kosnitsky’s blog post, presented by Laura Materi, Frontline Education.

Let’s begin with a metaphor to set the stage for the last component of a well written Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) statement:

When your child says he doesn’t feel well, you take his temperature. He’s got a temperature of 101! The doctor confirms your child has the flu and prescribes the “specially designed intervention” ― medicine, fluids and bedrest.

You take your child’s temperature every four hours to help you assess if he is getting better. We know that body temperature makes “getting better” measurable and a thermometer is a tried and true method for making this assessment. Now everyone (parent, doctor and child) knows the performance criteria necessary to monitor progress, and agrees it makes sense.

So, how can we use this metaphor to guide practice on collecting baseline data in an IEP in order to set meaningful and measurable goals? Not to be confused with other assessment data obtained through the initial or three year evaluations, baseline data in an IEP is specific to the annual measurable goals to be proposed in the subsequent section of the Individualized Education Program (IEP).

Baseline data provides the glue between the PLAAFP and goal writing. To recap the metaphor above:

Define the targeted skill the student will achieve (wellness) and define it in observable terms (lower body temperature).
Determine what measures this (a thermometer)
Collect baseline data (current body temperature).

Developing IEP Goals? Check out core concepts and best practices

Read the Guide Now

#1. Identify Skill or Behavior and Make it Observable

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that IEPs include measurable goals. Measurable goals define what the student will do in observable terms. If you can observe something, you can count it. And if you can count it once, you can count it again and again.

Throughout the PLAAFP, you’ve described the student’s different areas of need, such as reading, writing, regulating, etc. It’s assumed the services and subsequent goals are designed to “improve” or increase” skills in these areas of need.

But how do you measure “improved comprehension” or “increased attention?” To do this, ask, “What will I see the student do if he improved or increased ______?”

While “The student will improve comprehension” is not observable, it can become measurable with further definition: “The student will demonstrate improved comprehension by answering who, what, where, when and why questions.” Another example could be, “The student will demonstrate improved comprehension by describing the main idea and 2 details.”

#2. Find the Right Thermometer

With an observable skill, there are two essential questions to ask when selecting the right thermometer:

Question 1: What dimension of the skill will change? Is the dimension to change connected to frequency? Duration? Accuracy? Latency? Finding the right thermometer is about selecting a tool or data-collection strategy that quantifies the dimension that will change. For example — if you want a student to remain on task for longer periods of time, you know the thermometer will involve documenting time.

Question 2: Can the thermometer be used frequently and repeatedly? In other words, will you be able to take “the skill” temperature frequently? To do this, the thermometer must be easy and quick to administer. Now you can see why many of the assessments used in initial and three year evaluations don’t meet this criterion. The majority of data collection tools or thermometers you’ll use are grounded in “observational data collection.” How many times does the student…? How much longer does the student…? How much sooner can the student…?

[ctt template=”9″ link=”5m741″ via=”yes” ]All too often, IEP goals tend to be written without baseline data or consideration on how data will be collected throughout the year.[/ctt]

All too often, goals tend to be written without baseline data or consideration on how data will be collected throughout the year. Both federal and state laws require that parents are informed of their child’s progress toward their IEP goals at least as frequently as progress is reported for all students. When done correctly, how you decide to collect your baseline data in an IEP will be how you will monitor progress throughout the IEP cycle.

#3. Take Performance Temperature

One of the most challenging tasks in goal setting is to project how much growth/progress the student will make as a result of the supports and services they receive. We all know the frustration associated with monitoring progress for an overly ambitious goal. Likewise, we must guard against setting unambitious goals that establish low expectations and contribute to a student’s achievement gap.

The final step of the baseline process is to take the student’s temperature of the skill you want them to achieve by the end of the IEP cycle. This may seem counterintuitive-however, knowing where you start is an essential variable in projecting changes in performance criteria that are both challenging and attainable.

For example, if you want a student to increase their time on task, find a time during the school day when the student is expected to independently work on a task. Record the start time and the time at which the student stops the targeted skill. You may want to take several samples and determine a median score. For example, “During 4 separate opportunities for independent seatwork activities, the student’s median time on task was 2.5 minutes.”

If you’ve described an observable skill and selected the right thermometer, take the temperature. Think about it ― the baseline is the present tense of the goal. You repeat this process for each of the areas of need you have framed throughout the PLAAFP.

A Final Thought on Establishing Baseline Data in an IEP

Remember the line by Lewis Carroll: “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” This shows the importance of goal setting. If you don’t know where you are starting from, anywhere you end can look like progress. This shows the importance of collecting baseline data in an IEP.

I hope you will agree that our expectations for students should be ambitious. Our confidence that we can facilitate meaningful growth in our students must be equally ambitious. Knowing that we can continually take the student’s skill temperature on a frequent basis ensures we can accurately report progress and use data to guide our instructional decision-making. And that’s why including solid baseline data in your PLAAFP statements is so important!

Does your team have an efficient method of collecting baseline data to plan meaningful, measurable goals for each learner? As you review your IEP best practices, consider how Frontline Special Ed & Interventions can help you create stronger IEPs and report on student progress. Learn more

K-12 Cyber Security – Survey Reveals IT Leader Perceptions

Do you know what would happen to your school district’s data in the event of a cyber-attack? How much data, exactly, would be at-risk if your school district were suddenly exposed? Who would be affected and what information could become available?

In short, is your district prepared to handle the rising number of cyber-attacks on K-12 school districts across the country?

Many districts are not, according to a survey conducted by Frontline Education. Over a quarter of K-12 IT leaders say their current security and privacy posture is only “basic awareness” or even “lacking.”

And less than 1 in 5 say they have a “mature” security and privacy posture.

How would you describe your district’s overall security and privacy posture?

When it comes to information as sensitive as student data, that’s a troubling issue. When it’s an entire school’s or district’s worth of data? That’s an even bigger problem.

The Problem: K-12 Cyber Security Attacks on the Rise

The survey spun off of another recent survey, conducted by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), which revealed that cyber security had moved into the top spot amongst current K-12 IT leadership concerns.

And with good reason.

Education cyber-attacks have been on the rise in the US in recent years. Phishing, poor data management, external hackers, internal bad actors, even cyber advisories… with so many avenues to exploit, it’s only a matter of time until someone takes advantage. Unfortunately, schools are often viewed as “soft targets,” due largely to outdated or ineffective security programs.

[ctt template=”9″ link=”5cvQP” via=”no” ]Cyber security was ranked as the #1 concern for K-12 IT leaders. The solution? Putting a rock-solid plan in place. #edtech #cybersecurity[/ctt]

According to Ed Tech Strategies’ K-12 Cyber Incident Map, 67 reported incidents of cyber infiltration occurred during the 2016 school year, while 74 incidents occurred just in the first five months of 2017. Experts believe these numbers will continue to rise.

The Solution: Develop a Plan to Manage Cyber Risk

So, what’s the solution?

It’s all about having a plan. In fact, the K-12 IT leaders in our survey identified “no clearly defined plan” as the biggest obstacle in managing cyber risk.

What do you believe is your district’s biggest obstacle in managing cyber risk?

Internet blacklisting, endpoint protection, network access control and role-based access control are all good short-term fixes, but do they strike at the heart of the problem? What’s needed isn’t a quick fix, but a plan and processes in place that will ensure your data remains secure, no matter who might come knocking.

We’ve done some of the legwork for you. To learn more about building the best cyber security plan for your district, check out our Cyber Security Program Getting Started Guide.

Download the Guide

Explore by ROLE

frontline resources

MEET FRONTLINE

5 Ways to Increase Parent Participation in the IEP Process

Final Thoughts on Facilitating School/Parent Collaboration in the IEP Process

Step 1: Who qualifies for Tier 2/3 intervention services?

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

Step 2: What are the appropriate groupings of Tier 2/3 students based on profile of academic need?

Step 3: What assessment method(s) will you use to monitor Tier 2/3 progress?

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

Step 4: How long will the Tier 2/3 intervention last?

Step 5: What is the Tier 2/3 group’s baseline performance?

Real-word example of collecting baseline data:

Step 6: What is each student’s outcome goal?

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

Step 7: How often should you collect data?

Step 8: Is the intervention plan working? How does each student’s actual performance compare with the outcome goal?

Key Takeaway: Screening is the Foundation for a Progress-Monitoring Plan

Listen to individual stories

Spread success around

Look for “Aha!” moments

Make the most of hallway conversations

Tips to Collect and Manage Data

Role-based Permissions & Access to Data

Reporting & Data Formats

Visibility & Transparency

Staff Cohesion

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

Listening

4. Co-created Definitions

Meaningful Goals

Differentiated, Individual Professional Development

Table of Contents:

What is Onboarding?

Orientation

Induction

The Productivity of Pride

Your Objectives for Onboarding

Your Employees’ Objectives for Onboarding

The Things That Affect Employees Personally

The Things That Affect Employees as a Member of Their Department

The Things That Affect Employees as a Member of the Organization

Onboarding Tip:

Engaging Your Employees During the Onboarding Process

Fostering Engagement for Retention

E. Expanded recognition

N. Networking availability and encouragement

G. Generated “input for impact” dialogue

A. Access to resources

G. Giving your time

E. Evaluations made often

Building Relationships Through Onboarding

Common Barriers to Expanding

Using Technology to Automate Onboarding Processes

Using Technology to Promote Your Culture

Better Onboarding = Greater Student Success

Self-Evaluation Worksheet

Possible Scenarios for Using Focus Groups

Using Focus Groups in Conjunction with Surveys

Using focus groups prior to a survey.

Using focus groups after a survey.

Common Questions and Concerns

Challenges and Limitations

Setting up for Success with Focus Groups

Focus group questions or prompts.

Focus Group roles.

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

Logistics.

Are Focus Groups Worth the Effort?

States with “Don’t Pass the Trash” Laws

Washington – Chapter 28A.400, Section 303, enacted 2004

Oregon – HB 2062; Chapter 93, effective 2010

Pennsylvania – Act 168, enacted 2014

Connecticut – Public Act 16-67, enacted 2016

Wisconsin – Act 130, passed Dec 2017

Nevada – AB362, enacted 2017

New Jersey – Safer Schools Bill S414, adopted 2018

Maryland – HB486, enacted 2019

Implications for School Districts

#1. Identify Skill or Behavior and Make it Observable