Blog

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

IEPs Aligned to State Standards

While some states are experiencing changes as they implement new standards, all school districts are tasked with writing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) aligned with state standards. Special educators working to develop IEPs will do well to keep their standards in mind as they prepare students for the challenges of post-secondary education and employment.

Some frequently asked questions include:

Is there a legal requirement to write IEPs aligned to curricular standards?
How does this affect the way IEPs goals are written?
Should IEP goals be developed at the student’s grade placement level?

While public education is in flux, the core requirements for IEPs have remained largely constant since 1997. As educators increase their knowledge of the standards, it is a perfect time to clarify the unique relationship between standards and IEPs. Let’s start with a quick refresher on key terminology:

Standards define the academic outcomes students are expected to achieve upon completion of each grade.
Curriculum articulates how a school district will provide instruction (sequence of units, methodology, materials and assessments) for all students that will result in achievement of those outcomes.

Is there a legal requirement to write IEPs aligned to standards?

Federal regulations require that IEPs address a student’s “involvement and progress in the general curriculum.”

Providing further clarification, the U.S. Department of Education issued a guidance letter in 2015 stating that all IEPs must be tied to state academic standards.

Since eligibility for special education is based on the adverse effect a disability has on a student’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, it is only logical that explicit connections to the curriculum (and associated standards) are addressed in each student’s IEP.

In simple terms, students develop skills and learn concepts they have been taught. All students need to learn to read, write, communicate, compute, solve problems, make connections, speak, listen, etc. Likewise, students may learn these skills in different ways, in different timeframes and to different degrees.

The essential question at the heart of this discussion is not, “Can the student meet this standard?” A more engaging question is, “What would it take for this student to have meaningful interaction with grade level content?” This keeps the focus on rigorous content while providing necessary adaptations to methodology, materials and/or performance criteria for some students.

How does this affect the way IEP goals are written?

The IEP goal writing process can be summed up simply.

Based on:

Purpose of the standard
Characteristics and needs of the learner

IEP Team will determine:

Skills (what the student will demonstrate)
Conditions (what must be present when the student demonstrates the skill)
Criteria (how well the student must demonstrate the skill)

Utilizing a structured approach to decision-making (Gap Analysis) will ensure consideration of high curricular expectations without ignoring how their disabilities may affect the development of skills and acquisition of knowledge for some students.

Want to dive deeper? Sign up for our free 8-part video series on writing high-quality IEPs with Carol Kosnitsky:

Access the Courses

Gap Analysis

A gap analysis is used to systematically compare the student’s actual performance levels to his or her grade placement expectations. Let’s look at an example of how a team might use this process when writing an IEP goal for a 5^th grade student using a standard that focuses on reading informational text.

Step 1: Identify the targeted skill within the general education curriculum (refer to skills at student’s grade level placement).

Considerations	Example: RI. 5.2. Determine two or more main ideas of a text and explain how they are supported by key details. Summarize the text.
Look at essence of the standard — what is the big idea?	Readers use details in a text to make meaning of the text.
Look at knowledge and skills — what does student need to know and be able to do?	Knowledge: main idea, detail, components of summary, etc. Skills: identifying main idea and supporting details and summarizing.
Look at vocabulary — what are the most important words?	Main idea, key details, summarize, determine and explain.
Look at vocabulary — what are the most important words?	Main idea, key details, summarize, determine and explain.
Look at cognitive demands — what does the student’s brain need to do?	Decode text, use linguistic skills to comprehend grade level text and executive skills to keep track of details, prioritize key details, organize information to summarize and communicate summary with expressive language skills.

Step 2: Identify the unique characteristics of the student in relationship to the standard. Include a description of both strengths and the skills/behaviors the student presently demonstrates (refer to the grade level standards that reflect actual performance).

John is a 5^th grader with a reading disability that affects his decoding skills and an expressive language disability which affect both oral and written expression. John’s strengths include strong receptive language, auditory comprehension skills, background knowledge and curiosity. His present levels show that he can independently read (decode) mid 3^rd grade level text, but comprehends 5^th grade level text when provided auditory supports. He can identify the main idea and details, but he has difficulty summarizing the text.

Step 3: Analyze the “gap” using the following guidelines:

Compare the student’s present levels (actual) with the demands of the standard (expected).
Establish the size and nature of the gap and its relationship to the student’s disability.
Decide how the student’s strengths can be leveraged to increase access and engagement.
Determine the student’s need(s) and prioritize skills to be addressed in the IEP goals.

By analyzing the gap between the demands of RI. 5.2 and John’s present levels, the team recognizes John can remain engaged in the same reading activities as his peers with the scaffold of auditory supports. The focus of his IEP goal will be on improving expressive language skills by summarizing the text. Because of deficits in decoding, John’s team has determined he will have an additional goal on improving his decoding skills. Because the purpose of a Reading Foundations standard and Reading Informational Text standard are different and will be addressed through different interventions, they will be written as two separate goals in the IEP.

Should IEP goals be developed at the student’s grade placement level?

Whether a student’s goal is set at their grade placement level will be determined by analyzing the student’s present level and the relevant standard.

IEP goals must be challenging, and they must be attainable.

Once the Gap Analysis is completed, the Team can determine what supports are necessary to allow the student to have meaningful engagement with grade level content. In other words, how can the team make the least change to the purpose of the standard while ensuring the student has meaningful interaction with the content?

The basic elements of a goal provide the team several opportunities to align the goal to grade level content while individualizing it to address the student’s unique disability-related needs. Goals must include the following:

Skills — What skills (consistent with the grade level standard) will the student need to demonstrate?
Condition — What level of support/scaffolding is needed for the student to demonstrate the skill?
Criteria — What specific criteria will be used to determine if the student demonstrates the skill?

Skills

Select the appropriate skills to address in an IEP through the Gap Analysis. Because many basic skills are sequential, it is possible that a goal may be based on a skill that is aligned with a lower grade than the student’s placement. For example, a 4^th grade student with a significant reading disability may have a reading goal that targets decoding single syllable words, a skill typically learned in a lower grade. However, this same student may also need goals addressing higher level skills (determine main idea and details, multiply, convey ideas in written form, etc.). It is likely that some students will have more than one goal in areas such as reading and math.

Condition

Determine the condition under which the student must demonstrate the skill. The team can decide what is negotiable — in other words, what adaptations might be necessary for the student to have meaningful interaction with the content in order to learn/demonstrate the “skill.”

For example, if the skill is to communicate information based on evidence and the student is unable to independently write a paragraph, the condition for the goal may be “given the use of a graphic organizer,” “dictating,” or “using visual representations.” We can alter the condition to reflect the degree of scaffolding necessary for the student to engage in challenging content. Consider what can be modified while preserving the purpose of the standard.

Level (e.g. given a passage at the student independent reading level)
Supports (e.g. given a verbal prompt)
Environment (e.g. in a familiar setting with known adult)

Criteria

Identify the performance criteria necessary for the student to attain the goal. Adapting criteria allows for full or partial participation in the grade level based on present levels of performance and what is attainable within one year.

Here is John’s IEP goal written to align with reading informational text: RI. 5.2. Determine two or more main ideas of a text and explain how they are supported by key details. Summarize the text.

When provided grade level digital text (with auditory supports), John will summarize the text by verbalizing or writing 3-5 sentences that include the main idea and at least 2 key details that support the main idea for 4 consecutive opportunities.

Now let’s look at Jennifer.

Jennifer is also a 5^th grader. She has an intellectual disability that impacts all aspects of her language and academic functioning. She loves participating in reading activities, her receptive language is a relative strength and she uses visual cues to help with comprehension. Jennifer can independently read 1^st grade level text. Her language deficits make it very difficult for her to comprehend vocabulary and syntax above the 2-3^rd grade level. She can answer who, what and where questions on 1^st grade level text. She is unable to independently identify the main idea of a paragraph which is an essential pre-requisite skill for summarizing. Here is the goal Jennifer’s team selected to align with RI.5.2.

After reading 1^st grade level multi-paragraph informational text, Jennifer will identify the main idea of each paragraph by completing a fill in the blank graphic organizer with 90% accuracy for four consecutive opportunities.

Both John and Jennifer have IEP goals that align with 5^th grade expectations. Each of their goals establishes challenging, yet attainable expectations based on their unique needs.

Going Beyond IEP Standards

Standards provide a framework for the skills students need for life beyond high school. Students will develop these skills in different ways and in different timeframes. When we ask the question, “What would it take for this student to have meaningful engagement with the curriculum?” the IEP team is empowered to not only address the student’s unique needs, but also ensure the student has access to challenging and engaging curriculum. When we set high expectations and provide appropriate supports, students are likely to meet or exceed them.

Create compliant, individualized and relevant IEP with these six best practices:

Read the Guide Now

Students Evaluating Teachers: It’s Time to Ask the Kids…and Then Listen to Them

One day Alan*, a high school student in my special education English class, exclaimed in frustration, “All we ever do in here is read and write!” It was a proud moment for me. A huge compliment. That statement validated for me that I was doing it right, not wasting precious instructional time with frivolous activities.

My students had learning challenges. They struggled with reading and writing, and I was teaching them those very skills. Except that Alan wasn’t paying me a compliment. He was complaining. He was telling me he was unhappy in the learning environment I had so carefully crafted for him and my other students. Had I truly listened to his comment, I might have adjusted my teaching. I might have helped my students not only build their skills but also an understanding of the value of reading and writing – to see themselves as competent readers and writers. Instead, I forged ahead pushing raw skill over appreciation despite Alan’s and probably other students’ distaste for the work. Sadly, it was a missed opportunity for change.

It’s not easy to hear from others about our work performance, especially when their observations and resulting assessment don’t match how we think we’re doing. Personnel evaluation is a perennially uncomfortable part of employment. One fear is that evaluators won’t judge us fairly, that they won’t accurately assess how well we do our jobs, or that they will observe us at inopportune moments when we’re not at our best. We’re sure they don’t know our jobs as well as we do.

These sentiments aren’t unique to teachers, but are widely held by employees in any field. While some are evaluated on monthly or quarterly outputs or other performance metrics, teachers are generally evaluated on their instructional performance, and every teacher knows teaching can look different at any moment in time.

Why is evaluation so important?

Evaluation helps us understand the quality, value, and importance of something. It helps us understand how and how well something is working, and evaluation results can be used to inform future planning and action. Whether we are evaluating a program, a product or a person’s performance, we pose evaluation questions, collect relevant data to help answer those questions and analyze the data to arrive at a set of conclusions.

Being evaluated by a supervisor is part and parcel to being an employee. But increasingly, organizations have moved to more expanded views of employee evaluation. The concept of 360 degree feedback is not new, but something we haven’t (yet) fully embraced in schools. At its core, 360 feedback is gathered not only from supervisors, but from peers, colleagues, subordinates, etc. with the idea that as employees, we need to understand how we are perceived in the workplace and what our impact is on the people we encounter every day.

[ctt template=”9″ link=”6vC0N” via=”yes” nofollow=”yes”]Teachers should have the benefit of multiple measures of their performance, from multiple perspectives. Student feedback is generally quite accurate. -@SheilaBRobinson [/ctt]

Just as we know that students shouldn’t be evaluated based on one measure (i.e., one test), teachers should also have the benefit of multiple measures of their performance, from multiple perspectives. And where principals may be reticent about offering negative feedback because it may introduce conflict, students may be more forthcoming.

Why invite students to evaluate teachers?

Current trends in education point to students participating in their education and taking on roles in their schools in ways that differ greatly from what most adults have experienced. Consider these:

A focus on teaching social emotional skills
Students becoming change agents
Restorative practices and classroom community building
Improving school culture and climate
Personalized learning

Engaging students in evaluating teachers, whether on a formal or informal basis, is well-aligned with these trends. In fact, many large public school districts have tried larger-scale student evaluations of teachers, including Boston, Anchorage, Pittsburgh and Washington, DC (LaFee, 2014) with varying degrees of success. Some used commercially available surveys designed for this purpose, while others created their own.

Probably the most well-known commercially available student survey comes from the work of Ronald Ferguson, a Harvard economist who extensively researched students evaluating teachers. Fergusons’s survey became the basis for a comprehensive study – the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project. Early results from the MET study indicated “surveying students about their perceptions of their classroom environment provides important information about teaching effectiveness, as well as concrete feedback that can help teachers improve” (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2009).

And that’s not all. An article in The Atlantic describing Fergusons’s work says this:

That research had shown something remarkable: if you asked kids the right questions, they could identify, with uncanny accuracy, their most—and least—effective teachers.

The point was so obvious, it was almost embarrassing. Kids stared at their teachers for hundreds of hours a year, which might explain their expertise. Their survey answers, it turned out, were more reliable than any other known measure of teacher performance—including classroom observations and student test-score growth (Ripley, 2012).

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

Teacher Evaluation: WHY It Matters and HOW We Can Do Better

Where might we start with student evaluations?

When we consider the idea of students evaluating teachers we can imagine two distinct scenarios:

The collection of student feedback is mandatory, is communicated to principals and plays a formal role in contributing to a teacher’s personnel evaluation.
Individual teachers choose to ask students for feedback that stays between teacher and student, and is not used in a formal personnel evaluation.

More teachers would likely be comfortable with the second scenario, so if we think about experimenting, why not start here? Offer teachers the opportunity to pilot a student feedback survey, or work as a team to create their own. Give them the option of keeping the data to themselves and perhaps coming together only to reflect on the experience of gathering student feedback. Build a cadre of champions and cheerleaders before going all in school wide or district wide.

[ctt template=”9″ link=”quafK” via=”yes” nofollow=”yes”]One way to start having students evaluate teachers is to begin by asking individual teachers to consider asking for feedback that stays between the teacher and the student – not part of a formal evaluation. -@SheilaBRobinson [/ctt]

What if we could really hear students’ voices?

It’s easy for us to dismiss student voices, but let’s face it, whether their feedback is invited or not, our students are always evaluating us! It’s just that most of us have never given them a framework in which to do it, nor have we given them the message that we appreciate and value what they have to say about our performance. There are numerous potential objections to student evaluations.

They’re just kids, what do they know? They don’t have the maturity or sophistication to know what it means to evaluate someone. They don’t understand the art and science of teaching. They’re just out to get me because I’m strict and make them do their work.

And there are always questions about which students may be capable of engaging in evaluation. What about very young kids in preschool or primary grades? What about students with significant intellectual disabilities? Teachers may imagine them incapable of evaluating at all.

What if we were able to cast aside these objections? What if we could navigate around the challenges and find ways for all students to be able to express how they feel about their teachers and their learning environments? What if we were truly able to listen even when students tell us something we don’t want to hear?

And what if we learned something about our own teaching? What if we learned that our “teaching style” – whether we adopt or eschew technology, cooperative learning, open-book testing, field trips, etc. – doesn’t work for all of our students? What possibilities might be opened up for us to change our practice?

*a pseudonym

References:

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, (2009). Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Available: http://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/blog/measures-of-effective-teaching-project-faqs/
LaFee, S., (2014). Students Evaluating Teachers. School Administrator; Arlington Vol. 71, Iss. 3, (Mar 2014): 17-25.

The Three Little ERPigs (and the Big Bad PR, Audits & Fines)

You’ve heard the age-old story of The Three Little Pigs, but have you heard the one about The Three ERPs?

Once upon a time, there was a school business official named Lisa. She was worried about falling victim to audits, fines and bad PR because she didn’t have a process for managing school data. She didn’t know what her options were, so she made her way out into the world to seek out the perfect solution.

The sun was shining, and the birds were singing. Lisa was determined to search far and wide until she felt like she was being a good steward of district resources. The most important thing to her was to make an impact by supporting education in her district.

The first answer she found was made entirely of paper and spreadsheets, because it seemed like the easiest thing to do. It wasn’t really an ERP system, but she figured that maybe it was close enough. While she could track any and everything that she liked, the sacrifice of structure and accountability for the flexibility and convenience in the moment didn’t feel quite right. The flimsy paper and sticky notes made it hard to keep her arms around all of the information that she was responsible for.

As the paper piled higher and higher, she pictured herself anxiously attempting to provide proof of documentation in the face of an audit. She realized that while spreadsheets and paper have their place, maybe they just wouldn’t do for the complex needs of a school district. Lisa knew that if an audit came knocking on the door, it wouldn’t be easy to find everything she needed from all the filing cabinets and spreadsheets.

She moved on and continued exploring her options.

In the distance she could see a big commotion and just had to see what all of the fuss was about. Running toward the sound, Lisa was confronted with her next option. The second answer to managing school data was trying to implement generic corporate finance software. Going digital had obvious advantages over the paper process, but it turned out that the generic software required costly code customizations to handle data collection & reporting for schools.

Despite all the bells and whistles (which she didn’t end up needing anyway) it became apparent that this system was not designed with her staff and students in mind. This generic corporate software probably works just fine for large businesses, but it surely wouldn’t empower her to get more dollars into her classrooms. And she definitely didn’t want to be in the news for spending so much money on a system that didn’t even work for schools out of the box.

Lisa grew tiresome of the chant of “We can do that too!” being closely followed by “…But it will cost you.”

She marched on knowing in her heart that someone just had to care about her schools as much as she did.

Finally, she came across a third option for managing school data. As Lisa approached, skeptical after everything she had seen that day, she noticed a statement big and bold and it grabbed her attention:

Built by educators for educators.

She explored every possible scenario for managing her school district’s data with this system and it was clear that she had found a winning match. She’d learned her lesson: schools need software that is designed exclusively for them, not second-hand solutions that were actually built for corporations, government or municipalities… it just isn’t the same.

Lisa made her way back to her district with the perfect solution for handling everything from HR to Finance and Payroll.

Lisa was able to trust that data collection, state and federal reporting were all running smoothly to maximize funding across her district. Her staff, students and families were grateful for reliable, real-time access to information.

And they all lived happily ever after.

3 Benefits of Restorative Dialogue for English Learners

Faced with a growing population of English language learners (ELLs), one school district is taking a collaborative approach to addressing the multidimensional needs of its students.

In a recent episode of our Field Trip podcast, we talked with Grace Delgado, the Director of Language Acquisition, and Lorin Furlow, the Director of Special Services, of Brazosport Independent School District near Houston, Texas. Grace and Lorin have developed and incorporated restorative practices with ELL classroom tools in a way that is making a profound difference in their school district.

Through conversations about the common needs of their ELLs and those referred for behavioral issues, Grace and Lorin realized they could best serve their schools by combining their areas of expertise. They looked for a way to address not just surface behavioral issues, but also the underlying lack of confidence and community that complicate the high-school experience for students who are also striving to acquire English as a second language while keeping up in school. The result was bringing the restorative practice of circles, where a teacher facilitates respectful conversation among students, into their ELL classrooms.

When asked what difference these circles have made in the lives of students and staff in Brazosport ISD, Grace and Lorin shared three big changes:

1. Strengthening student voice and confidence

The students who have participated in restorative practices in the context of their ELL classroom have flourished. In one student’s own words, he feels the circles have given him “voice and confidence and an avenue to get over his shyness with speaking that he struggled with on a daily basis.” Not only has their English truly improved, as shown in their confident and public participation in school assemblies, but they have also shown a real, developing compassion for their fellow students. In Lorin’s words, their language has changed from “them” and “they” to “us.” And as this small community builds circles into their classrooms, behavioral issues are less and less a problem out in the hallways of the school.

[ctt template=”9″ link=”bdU1V” via=”yes” nofollow=”yes”]Students who have participated in restorative practices in the context of their #ELL classroom have flourished. Read more: [/ctt]

2. Teachers learning new skills

The teachers who agree to bring the practice of circles into their class have also grown, learning to “facilitate learning versus direct learning,” how to listen and respond. They play a key role in the learning and growth of these students. And as the district continues to fine-tune its program, teachers can give their own feedback and shape how their students will be served in the future.

You may enjoy this hand-picked content:

4 Ways to Support Staff Working with English Language Learners

3. A powerful impact on campus culture

Where circle facilitation has been incorporated into classrooms, the campus culture has been profoundly affected. In the words of one student, “You really get to know people through the conversations that happen in circles.” Where teachers’ and students’ understanding of one another has deepened, the climate of the entire campus is impacted powerfully.

These benefits have come after much collaboration and deliberation around:

The right teachers to train as facilitators
How to create a helpful circle routine
What resources each classroom needs
How to be sure that standards are not overlooked as instructional time is spent in circles
And more

But the results have been well worth it.

Want to learn more about facilitating restorative practices for ELLs? Listen to the full podcast.

When English learners have behavioral issues, school teams need an easy way to share ideas and track student progress over time. Learn how Frontline can help

Explore by ROLE

frontline resources

MEET FRONTLINE

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

#2. Find the Right Thermometer

#3. Take Performance Temperature

A Final Thought on Establishing Baseline Data in an IEP

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

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

The Solution: Develop a Plan to Manage Cyber Risk

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

Is there a legal requirement to write IEPs aligned to standards?

How does this affect the way IEP goals are written?

Want to dive deeper? Sign up for our free 8-part video series on writing high-quality IEPs with Carol Kosnitsky:

Gap Analysis

Step 1: Identify the targeted skill within the general education curriculum (refer to skills at student’s grade level placement).

Step 2: Identify the unique characteristics of the student in relationship to the standard. Include a description of both strengths and the skills/behaviors the student presently demonstrates (refer to the grade level standards that reflect actual performance).

Step 3: Analyze the “gap” using the following guidelines:

Should IEP goals be developed at the student’s grade placement level?

Skills

Condition

Criteria

Going Beyond IEP Standards

Create compliant, individualized and relevant IEP with these six best practices: