Cool Tools for Hot Topics

October 1, 2015

Changing school hours, tearing down an aging playground, reductions in bus service and other common issues can quickly become contentious topics that tear at the fabric of communities and cost school administrators needless hours, dollars, and heartache.

Fortunately, collaborative problem solving is a tool for turning contentious issues into positive opportunities. Collaborative problem solving processes bring stakeholders together (usually with the assistance of a trained facilitator) to define a problem, identify the core interests and concerns of all involved, and generate solutions that integrate these interests and concerns.

Why use collaborative problem solving?

Not only do collaborative approaches bridge differences by enabling participants to better understand each other’s interests and find mutually acceptable solutions based on common interests, but they often result in higher quality solutions than would otherwise be possible. As people learn about each other’s views and needs, they learn more about the problem. In developing options together, they consider a wider variety of possibilities. In arriving at a plan or policy that reflects the concerns and ideas of all participants, they develop the best possible solutions. Another benefit of collaborative problem solving is that it accelerates the pace of a decision or project because stakeholders are less likely to block implementation if they understand that a plan or policy reflects their input and has been crafted to meet their basic interests. Stakeholders involved in this process often have a high commitment to the success of the plan or policy. Finally, collaborative processes can save districts resources by mobilizing the resources of all of the participants be those resources time, space, ideas, fundraising capabilities, or donations.

How does it work?

Identify an issue that needs to be resolved.
Identify a neutral facilitator to guide the process or the district may decide to convene the process with the help of a small, representative group of stakeholders.
Assess the feasibility of collaboration and who needs to be involved and how to engage them.
Convene all needed participants.
Participants jointly agree to objectives and ground rules for working together.
Conveners and participants work together to frame the issues to be resolved.
Conveners and participants develop agreements that integrate interests and resources.
Conveners and participants implement their agreements together.

For example:

In 2011, a metro area integration district was facing the potential closure of two schools that leaders once hoped would address segregation and the achievement gap. Following a public outcry, the district embarked on a collaborative problem solving process designed to gather stakeholder input on options to redesign the 10-member district. Ultimately, the district arrived at the innovative solution of transferring two of the schools to other districts.

How do I get started?

While districts can lead successful collaborative problem solving efforts on their own, their chances for success are greatly increased by utilizing a professional facilitator. The Minnesota State Office for Collaboration and Dispute Resolution can help. Learn more at http://mn.gov/admin/bms/ocdr or by calling 651-539-1409.

Educational Technology Component Group Update

October 1, 2015

0

Technology is playing a more important role than ever before in how school districts across the state function. Every area within districts is now infused with technology. To name a few: classrooms, the office, cafeterias, transportation, maintenance, and finance. All areas are utilizing technology to improve effectiveness and efficiency as we educate children. The result is a safer, more comfortable, more efficient, more engaging, more connected, and more personalized learning environment for our students, families, and staff. The role of technology leader in a school district has evolved and it requires the person to understand the needs of the entire district to serve all stakeholders effectively.

This raises a question; how can a school district provide the technology leader with the professional support that is needed to meet the ever increasing demands on the position? One very good option is to provide that leader with an MASA membership in the Technology Component Group.

MASA membership provides a variety of opportunities for technology leaders to participate in professional networks, mentorship, and professional development. The membership also provides avenues to engage in leadership at the local, regional, and state level. The component group members support growth opportunities in technology, education, and leadership. MASA’s technology component group members can also get involved in designing professional development, engaging in district and regional collaboration, MASA committee work, and on the Google+ community “MASA Tech.” This community provides instant access to top Educational Technology Leaders around the state. Being a member will make your technology leader a more informed leader in your district.

In 2014-15 the Technology Component Group had a very busy year. Here are a few things the group accomplished:

Developed a large body of leaders who can lead and mobilize around issues related to educational technology (Almost 60 members in our first year)
Influenced the MASA strategic plan
Served on committees that created the 2014-15 MASA political platform
Presented at both the Fall and Spring MASA conferences
Created a separate strand for Ed Tech Leaders at the Spring Conference
Testified for both the Senate and House Education Committees
Influenced bills in both the house and senate that will move the goal of data portability in our state forward
Organized a legislative lobbying day at the Capitol
Created conversations across the state among educational technology leaders and superintendents about the role of technology leaders in education
Hosted meetings and luncheons to gather input from members and foster professional and personal relationships among colleagues
Created a Google Community to share the work of the organization and its members
Began a partnership with the CLM group to co-plan the CLM 2015 conference
Generated a pool of talented Ed Tech Leaders who are willing to serve as mentors to new leaders in the field

In the spirit of continuous improvement, we are engaged in steps to strengthen MASA and our component group. We feel our association provides significant value and a strong professional community for members. If you have not already established a membership for your district’s technology leader please consider the opportunity. Together we can all serve as a leading voice for education.

The Effective Utilization of Police Liaison Officers in Responding to Student Misconduct

October 1, 2015

0

The cooperative relationship between local law enforcement and the public schools has undoubtedly been of great benefit to building administrators who want to maintain school safety and security. However, the relationship sometimes creates double standards that can cause confusion and increase the potential for legal challenges. The prospect for legal difficulties is most apparent in the area of student discipline, where students occasionally must be questioned, searched, restrained or arrested.

Searching Students
Constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure apply to police officers and public school officials. However, different standards apply in determining whether a school administrator or police officer may legally search a student. Generally, a decision by a school administrator to search a student must be based on “reasonable suspicion” that the student has violated some school rule and the search must be reasonable in its scope. This standard generally requires some level of individualized suspicion (and more than a hunch or feeling). On the other hand, a police officer is generally required to have a higher standard of “probable cause” to search a person.

The different standards afford school officials a little more leeway in deciding what evidence would be sufficient to conduct a search reasonable in its scope. For example, under the totality of the circumstances a school official may have reasonable suspicion to conduct a search of a student with prior drug offenses who appears at school with a flushed face, glassy-red eyes and an unusual or unruly affect. On the other hand, a police encountering such an individual in the community would, under most circumstances, not be at liberty to conduct a search.

So which standard applies to searches where the police liaison officer and school administrators are working cooperatively? In answer to this question several courts have indicated that, “a search of a student on school grounds by a school resource officer at the request of school officials should be deemed a search by a school employee . . . and thus is subject to the reasonableness standard, not the probable cause standard.”

Seizure or Holding a Student for Questioning
Constitutional concerns can also be invoked when a student is held for questioning. Most courts have applied the “reasonableness test” when examining whether a school official’s questioning of a student constitutes an unlawful seizure. The decisions have tended to permit more extended “involuntary” questioning of a student about school misconduct than would be permitted by a police officer acting outside of the school because “[s]tudents at school . . . have a significantly lesser expectation of privacy in regard to the temporary “seizure” of their persons than does the general population.” Courts are more likely to uphold a challenge based on the method of the detention (e.g. decision to place a student in a storage closet or have a liaison officer handcuff a student), rather than questioning the sufficiency of a district’s rationale for detaining the student.

Case law also suggests that joint questioning of a student by both school officials and a police liaison officer is entitled to a more relaxed “reasonableness standard.” Nonetheless, it is best to separate routine school investigations from police investigations. Serious criminal investigations require the work of trained law enforcement officers. Too much involvement or interference in the criminal investigation by school officials can compromise prosecution of a case. School officials should instead rely on initial police investigations to provide the factual support for any related school disciplinary action.

Similarly, school officials are advised to keep peace officers removed from routine disciplinary matters. Use of a police liaison officer for routine discipline interventions can sometimes result in claims that the school district should be held responsible for the decisions and actions of the police.

Only involve police liaison officers for health, safety or criminal concerns
Ensure that district policies and contracts with law enforcement clearly define the role of police liaison officers
Conduct staff training on the appropriate use of police liaison officers
Designate administration that will serve as primary contact with law enforcement (exceptions may exist for emergency situations)
Consider training for law enforcement officer who may be required to interact with students with unique needs
Avoid drafting IEPs/behavior plans that limit the authority of school officials to involve law enforcement
Don’t play the role of police or prosecutor by advocating a result in the juvenile justice system

This article is intended to provide general information with commentary. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. If required, legal advice regarding this topic should be obtained from district legal counsel.

Tim R. Palmatier is an education law attorney with the law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered. For more information, please contact him at (612) 337-9300 or http://www.kennedy-graven.com.

Translating Research to Practice: It takes a Village!

October 1, 2015

0

Most of us have heard the phrase “It takes a village to raise a child.” As a parent, I completely agree! As an educational professional, I think this phrase applies equally to translating research to educational practice – it takes a village, and it is not as easy as it sounds! I have spent the last twenty years of my career working in the schools to try to improve educational outcomes for students. While I continue to have the same mission, I recently began working at the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the University of Minnesota as an Associate Director. Now, my task is how to assist districts and other educational organizations to use the results of research to help guide their work towards closing the achievement gap and increasing educational outcomes for all students.

My experience over the past 20 years has largely been focused on how to maintain effective programs for students during tough economic times. We have all faced budget cuts, quickly rising benefit costs, salary increases for staff, and a growing number of high needs students. Fortunately, I learned there are strategies available that can raise achievement to all students without breaking the bank! However, the challenge for leaders is to distinguish what expenditures really make a difference for students from a hundred that do not. Knowing what works requires district leaders to ask different questions.

Typically, conversations start out by asking “What works in education?” While this may seem like a great question, a more powerful question is “What works best?” If you review the educational research literature, there are thousands of strategies that “work.” However, we need to identify those strategies that have the greatest impact on student achievement and make sure those strategies are well embedded in the instructional environment. When we talk about closing the achievement gap, we need to identify strategies and frameworks that will accelerate student achievement allowing them to make more than one year’s growth in one year.

Imagine if you had answers to some of the following questions during your annual budget preparation:

Students of teachers receiving support from instructional coaches gained 4 months more learning than students of teachers who did not receive coaching.
Students of teachers who received professional development in (pick your area) fared no better than students of teachers who did not receive the professional development.
Students who used on-line “flex books” performed similarly on standardized tests of achievement than students who used traditional textbooks.

If you were trying to make budget decisions about those three areas, you may decide to invest in instructional coaches, change the way professional development is delivered, and move away from purchasing textbooks in selected areas. But having data like this requires work. It requires that districts evaluate all programs, frameworks, and strategies using multiple measures. Many districts don’t have the internal capacity to do this type of work.

CAREI wants to help! We are working to identify statewide needs in the area of assessment, research, and evaluation and provide low-cost (or no-cost) services to districts. We have set an ambitious goal that we want our services to impact 80% of school districts within three years! In the ongoing quest to translate research to practice, I will be writing a regular column in the MASA newsletter called “Research to Practice”. I hope to identify relevant research and help build the bridge to practice. Please contact me at kgibbons@umn.edu if you want more information about CAREI or if you have certain topics you would like covered in future newsletters!

Kim Gibbons, Ph.D., currently is the Associate Director of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota. Prior to that, she was the Executive Director of the St. Croix River Education District (SCRED) located in Rush City, MN. SCRED has received national recognition for its use of the Response to Intervention (RtI) framework. In 2007, SCRED received a legislative appropriation to fund a statewide Minnesota RtI Center for two years. Dr. Gibbons obtained her doctoral degree in school psychology from the University of Oregon where she received extensive training in the problem solving model, curriculum based measurement, and research-based instructional practices. Prior to her role as the Executive Director, Dr. Gibbons has worked as a director of special education, staff development coordinator, and school psychologist. She is active in state leadership and is the past-president of the Minnesota Administrators for Special Educators. Finally, she is the co-author of three books and has numerous other peer-reviewed publications. She is a sought-after consultant who has given numerous workshops throughout the nation.