Editor’s note: This essay is an entry in Fordham’s 2021 Wonkathon, which asked contributors to address a fundamental and challenging question: “How can schools best address students’ mental health needs coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic without shortchanging academic instruction?” Click here to learn more.

Sound childhood mental health is the foundation of stability that supports academic success in school. Investing in the mental health of K–12 students is much needed, but by the time a child reaches kindergarten, many mental health issues have already emerged and begun to cause problems, setting some children on a course for academic failure. Waiting to invest in children’s mental health at school age is a missed opportunity, nor is such a plan the most cost effective public policy.

It is during the first five years of a child’s life when their brains are developing the most rapidly. By age six, the brain has already reached 95 percent of its peak size. Children under age two are at an especially critically sensitive time developmentally because they are at the height of neuroplasticity and greatly benefit from developmentally stimulating experiences and positive caregiver interactions. Investments in early childhood mental health supports and the programs, such as quality child care which can deliver these services available to families, is crucial to a child’s successes in school and in life (Institute of Medicine, 2000).

One such program is Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultations (IECMHC). IECMHC builds the capacity of the adults caring for children as well as addresses the challenging behaviors some young children face. IECMHC is a prevention- and relationship-based approach that pairs a mental health consultant with the adults who work with infants and young children in the natural settings where they learn and grow, including child care, preschool, and the home (Center for Excellence for IECMHC, 2017, 2020; SAMHSA, 2014). Implementation varies depending on the population, need, and local infrastructure, but the goal remains the same: healthy children and healthy families.

In Maryland, IECMHC is funded by the Maryland State Department of Education and happens in a number of settings. Child care providers can access mental health consultation through the statewide network of Child Care Resource Centers. These centers also train providers to identify symptoms of mental health problems that young children may exhibit. For example, providers know how a child gets along with others and will notice if they’re isolating themselves from the rest of the kids. They may also notice if they aren’t listening to instructions or are being overly aggressive. Then a mental health specialist and the provider will work with the child and their parents to solve problems together. The mental health consultants also work with child care program directors and teachers to advise about universal program and classroom strategies that promote social emotional well-being for all children. 

IECMH consultants also visit Early Head Start Centers and spend time in classrooms. They observe and interact with children, providing direct support. But perhaps even more importantly, they support the teachers in planning for lessons and needed developmental supports. In addition, Maryland funds a network of Family Support Centers, which also support the emotional needs of families. They offer developmental screenings for children and employ the Strengthening Families Framework to support parents, along with early childhood mental health services.

The IECMHC model in Maryland relies on the National Pyramid Model (NPM). NPM is a framework that promotes the social and emotional development and school readiness of young children from birth through age eight and has been found to help teachers improve social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for children (Hemmeter, 2016). Training, coaching for staff, and the implementation of a program-wide positive behavior support in early childhood programs though the NPM approach provides a tiered intervention framework of interventions for promoting social, emotional, and behavioral development of infants and toddlers who are indicated for services related to delays or concerns with development. This model aligns with school-aged Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS), applied broadly throughout the school system within Maryland. 

When society invests in programs like these we not just investing in children. We are making a down payment on the well-being of the entire country for decades to come. For example, Nobel Laureate in economics James Heckman finds a 13 percent return on investment for high-quality, birth-to-five early education in the form of improved life outcomes such as higher school graduation rates, better long-term physical and mental health, greater earning potential as adults, and reduced likely hood of substance misuse. Society as a whole sees reduced social spending due to less crime, less unemployment, and less drug and alcohol dependency (Heckman, 2016).

Other research finds equally significant positive outcomes stemming specifically from early childhood mental health programs and interventions. Dr. Walter Gilliam of Yale University found improved teacher-rated child behavior, improved classroom climates, increases in teacher-reported developmentally appropriate knowledge, as well as increased job satisfaction and reduced stress for the teachers themselves (Gilliam, 2006; 2007; 2014). 

Further research supports these findings by demonstrating positive outcomes for children, increased quality of teacher-child relationships, and improved early childhood classroom settings (Brennan, et al., 2008; Connors-Burrow, 2013; Gilliam, 2016). A 2009 systematic review also found that improved child behavior was a consistent outcome of IECMHC (Perry et al., 2010). In Maryland, annual statewide data collection has also shown improved child, family, and classroom-level outcomes while teacher- and parent-rated child behavior has improved, too (Latta et al., 2021; Wasserman, et al., 2020; Andujar, et al., 2019; Candelaria, et al., 2018).

For far too long, preschool suspension was a common occurrence. So common that the Maryland Legislature recently made it unlawful to expel children enrolled in publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs (COMAR, 2017). Instead, a greater emphasis has been placed on providing early childhood teachers with the tools needed to address mental health problems, which are at the root of a child’s misbehavior. Gilliam’s research lends credence to this approach.

Gilliam uncovered disparities in the experiences of young children of color and children from other marginalized communities in early childhood settings, especially around rates of suspension and expulsion (U.S Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014; Gilliam, 2016). IECMHC is linked with reducing those rates (Perry et al., 2008; Gilliam & Shahar, 2006) by impacting early childhood professionals’ beliefs, attitudes, and practices to support more effective caregiving for all children. The proof is in the numbers. Among sites in Maryland that receive IECMHC, formally identified preschool expulsions rates have been low among children receiving this service: 3–5 percent in 2018–20 (Latta et al., 2021, Wasserman, et al., 2020; Andujar, et al., 2019; Candelaria, et al., 2018).

For children who are trauma-exposed, the need is even more urgent. Toxic stress or other adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have long-term impacts on developing brains. The National Survey of Children’s Health found that just under half of the children in the United States have lived through at least one traumatic experience, such as losing a parent to divorce, abandonment, or incarceration; witnessing or being a victim of violence; experiencing neglect; living with a parent suffering from addiction or mental illness; or living in a family that faces economic hardship. Sadly, the generational impacts of poverty and other ACEs means that many parents experiencing the negative emotional effects of trauma often have had limited exposure to strategies to promote attachment and resilience in their own children. The Covid-19 pandemic has only exacerbated emotional problems of young children in Maryland. At the same time, Maryland’s early childhood workforce is facing a dramatic economic crisis caused by low enrollments.

Mental illness is treatable and manageable, and often preventable. More investments are needed to strengthen existing programs, fill existing gaps, reduce stigma, foster innovation and research, and break down barriers. Invest earlier, and collectively and we will reap the benefits earlier, throughout a child’s academic career and life. Otherwise, the K–12 school system, and then our society at large, will bear the brunt of these problems if help does not arrive soon for our youngest children.

References

AMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). Expert Convening on Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/IECMHC/ie…- expert-convening-summary.pdf

Andujar, P., Fry, J., Wasserman, K., & Candelaria, M. (2019). Maryland’s infant & early childhood mental health consultation project: 2019 legislative brief. The Institute for Innovation and Implementation. https://create.piktochart.com/output/35764480-md-iecmhc- project-1-25-2019

Brennan, E. M., Bradley, J. R., Allen, M. D., & Perry, D. F. (2008). The evidence base for mental health consultation in early childhood settings: Research synthesis addressing staff and program outcomes. Early Education and Development, 19(6), 982-1022. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280801975834

Candelaria, M., Fry, J., Wasserman, K. & Hanna, T. (2019). Maryland early childhood mental consultation outcomes – licensed vs. non-licensed consultants – 2019 preliminary report.  Institute for Innovation and Implementation, University of Maryland School of Social Work.

Center of Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation. (2020). Infant and early childhood mental health consultation—Competencies. http://www.iecmhc.org/documents/IECMHC-competencies.pdf.

Conners-Burrow, N. A., McKelvey, L., Sockwell, L., Harman J., Adams, S., & Whiteside-Mansell, L. (2013). Beginning to ‘unpack’ early childhood mental health consultation: Types of consultation services and their impact on teachers. Infant Mental Health Journal, 34(4), 280-289.

Duran, F., Hepburn, K., Irvine, K., et al. (2009). What Works? A Study of Effective Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Programs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development, (2009).

Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state. Infants & Young Children, 19, 228–245.

Gilliam, W. S. (2007). Early childhood consultation partnership: Results of a random-controlled evaluation. Final report and executive summary. Yale University Child Study Center.

Gilliam, W. S. (2014, July 7-9). Recent evaluations and innovations in early childhood mental health consultation [Symposium]. Head Start’s 12^th National Research Conference on Early Childhood, Washington, D.C., United States.

Gilliam, W. S., Maupin, A. N., Reyes, C. R., Accavitti, M., & Shic, F. (2016). Do early educators’ implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions: Research study brief. Yale UniversityChild Study Center.

Latta, L., Afkinich, J., Sweeney-Wasserman, K., Kane, A., & Candelaria, M. (2021). Maryland’s infant & early childhood mental health consultation project: 2020 legislative report. The Institute for Innovation and Implementation.  https://earlychildhood.marylandpublicschools.org/system/files/filedepot/19/legislative_brief_fy2020_3.pdf

Office for Civil Rights. (2014, March). Data snapshot: Early childhood education (Civil Rights Data Collection Issue Brief No. 2). U. S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-early-learning-sna…

Perry, D. F., Dallas Allen, M., Brennan, E. M., & Bradley, J. R. (2010). The evidence base for mental health consultation in early childhood settings: A research synthesis addressing children’s behavioral outcomes. Early Education and Development, 21(6), 795-824. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280903475444

Perry, D. F., Dunne, M. C., McFadden, L., & Campbell, D. (2008). Reducing the risk for preschool expulsion: Mental health consultation for young children with challenging behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17(1), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-007-9140-7

Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. National Academy Press.

Wasserman, K., & Candelaria, M. (2020). Maryland’s infant & early childhood mental health

consultation project: 2019 legislative report. The Institute for Innovation and

Implementation. MD IECMHC Leg Brief 2019

Wasserman, K., Candelaria, M., Hanna, T., & Guerra, J. (2020). Maryland infant & early childhood mental health support services: Practice standards and recommendations. Division of Early Childhood and Division of Early Intervention and Special Education Services, Maryland State Department of Education. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:02cb67…

Editor’s note: This essay is an entry in Fordham’s 2021 Wonkathon, which asked contributors to address a fundamental and challenging question: “How can schools best address students’ mental health needs coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic without shortchanging academic instruction?” Click here to learn more.

As schools move to fully reopen, our first inclination may be to focus on the learning gaps that students have developed during the pandemic. But the psychological and emotional well-being of all members of a school community must also remain in the foreground. Establishing school as a space that is both physically and emotionally safe is essential. All students and teachers have experienced unprecedented disruption to normal patterns of interaction, and many have had to cope with uncertainty or substantial hardship. They will need support as they transition back into a full-time academic environment. In addition, many students will be managing grief, anxiety, or other emotional responses to recent events that will require long-term monitoring and an ongoing response.

Amid the instability of the 2020–21 school year, school leaders identified students’ mental health as one of their top concerns. However, most educators do not feel confident in their ability to identify students who might require additional mental health supports. Furthermore, many schools lack a clear, coherent system for addressing students’ mental health needs. Roughly 40 percent reported that they currently address concerns on a “case by case basis.”

The time for ad hoc responses is over. Having a distinct plan in place as students and educators reacclimate to the classroom environment will be integral to ensuring the well-being of students.

Recommendations

Our recommendations fall into four major types of action:

1. Triage: Perform formal or informal triage to identify what students need to support their learning, and establish a referral system to connect students with school- and community-based mental health resources.
2. Trauma-informed practices: Expect students to have difficulty with the transition back into classrooms. Establish generalized supports that can benefit all students, specifically trauma-informed relational practices and a robust framework for social and emotional learning that promotes emotional well-being and social connectedness.
3. Targeted intervention: Monitor for behaviors that indicate a need for targeted intervention. Support school-based mental health professionals in implementing an evidence-based mental health program, such as Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS), for students who have experienced significant trauma or who have been diagnosed with serious mood, anxiety, or other behavioral disorders.
4. Faculty support: Attend to the mental health needs of faculty and staff by providing appropriate resources, developing a culture of emotional openness and vulnerability, building structures to support social engagement, and helping individuals develop their self-care practice.

Rationale

Triage

Students have experienced the pandemic in different ways. While some students may not have weathered significant anxiety or personal hardship, others have experienced traumatic personal events. This is most common among low-income students and students from racial and ethnic minorities, whose families are far more likely to have suffered economic hardship, illness, and death.

Students who have been physically separated from their school or community may feel isolated or neglected, including those who are vulnerable in their homes as a result of the volatility or abusive behavior of a family member. Many students, and particularly Black students, may also be contending with anxiety, fear, or confusion in a climate of anti-Black racism and police violence.

Knowing the state of any one student’s emotional well-being is difficult, unless they voluntarily disclose that information or, perhaps more likely, exhibit stress-induced behaviors like misbehaving (externalizing) or shutting down (internalizing). And educators must be ready to support all students, without treating them all the same. Mary Walsh, a professor of counseling and developmental psychology at Boston College, has estimated that even among students who have experienced trauma during the period of the closure, only about one-third are likely to develop serious issues, such as PTSD. Monitoring students for behavior changes will be important, but Walsh cautions against pathologizing students, suggesting that “If we put the right protective factors in place, kids have enormous resilience.”

The American School Counselors Association and the National Association of School Psychologists recommend collecting data to inform a psychological “triage” approach to allow schools and districts to identify students who need mental-health supports most. That includes students who have lost someone close to them, whose families have experienced financial distress or dislocation, who have previous mental-health concerns, and who have a history of trauma, including membership in a community with a previous history of educational disruption (such as natural disasters or mass casualties).

The next step is to connect students to appropriate services. Selecting those services should not be done on a case-by-case basis. Rather, staff need to have a clear understanding of what is available to best respond to student needs well in advance of any incident. A clear process for referrals can make this step more efficient and maximize the impact of this response.

Project Aware Ohio has detailed a comprehensive referral protocol to help schools and districts identify gaps in current procedures:

1. Establish a problem-solving team for referrals. If there is no preexisting team with capacity to manage referrals, team members will need to be established and the team’s purpose, responsibilities, routines, and evaluation procedures articulated.
2. Determine a procedure for managing referral flow. Adopt a standard referral form, determine a process for submission, and communicate this process with the school community. If referrals will be made to community agencies, identify key contacts.
3. Develop a system for the team to gather student background information. Establish norms for collecting data from triage screenings, behavioral observations, and interviews with family and school personnel.
4. Establish a secure record-management system. Determine where data will be stored and ensure that access is limited to appropriate team members.
5. Map available resources and interventions. Create a database of school- and community-based resources and available interventions. Establish community partnerships, when appropriate, to fill gaps and discuss how the referral time will address barriers to access.
6. Create decision rules to determine appropriate interventions based on this information. Establish guidelines on how students will be identified for the different tiers of intervention that are available and a plan for evaluating whether interventions are effective or should be discontinued.
7. Develop a system to monitor and evaluate intervention effectiveness. The team should establish procedures for tracking whether interventions are occurring, whether they are effective, and how to request and share information and feedback between the involved parties (such as students, families, school personnel, and community partners).

Trauma-informed practices

Trauma is a psychological or emotional response to “an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening,” according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Many students and families have personally experienced trauma related to health and economic consequences of the pandemic. And the period of disruption itself may have been traumatic for some. Viewing these events as presenting multiple potential traumas can help guide school policies, practices, and interactions among staff and students.

The adoption of trauma-informed practices in schools has steadily gained steam over the past several years. Dr. Howard Bath, a clinical psychologist and expert in developmental trauma, has identified three key pillars of trauma-informed care: safety, connection, and managing emotional impulses.

Ensuring students feel safe is essential. Even in the absence of a distinct threat, the brains of traumatized children tend to remain in a state of alarm, with energy focused on ensuring safety rather than engaging in growth-promoting activities. Creating consistent, reliable, and predictable environments in which students feel they have a degree of power and choice can help establish school as a safe place where they can relax their guard and trust the adults that they interact with regularly.

Trust and the perception of safety cannot occur without the second pillar, connection. Positive relationships with caring adults have great therapeutic value and may help to counteract negative associations from past experiences. Educators can foster such relationships by attending to, validating, and creating space for the strengths that students bring to the classroom. This also supports students’ seeing themselves as competent, worthwhile individuals.

Maintaining compassionate connections is complicated, however, by the difficulty traumatized individuals often have in self-regulation and managing emotional impulses. Responses to trauma are frequently observed as behavioral responses. In a school environment, where establishing strong routines and behavioral norms is a necessary part of creating a physically and emotionally safe space, trauma may prevent students from complying with all expectations for behavior right away. Students will need time to adjust, and disobedience may simply be a function of students’ challenges to regulate themselves.

Educators need to keep this in mind, rather than categorizing behavior as willful disobedience. Rather than assuming negative classroom behaviors (such as outbursts, defiance, or shutting down) are intentional and responding in a punitive fashion, trauma-sensitive educators help students “co-regulate” by modeling and explicitly teaching students how to manage their emotional impulses. Connectedness with peers is also an important protective factor, both for students dealing with trauma and those with other mental health conditions. Explicit social and emotional learning instruction can help facilitate these relationships.

Targeted intervention

Though adopting trauma-informed practices as generalized supports is beneficial, for some students, that won’t be sufficient support. A subset of students will have had direct traumatic experiences or be suffering from mental health conditions. They will need intensive interventions above and beyond generalized trauma-informed care in order to be ready to learn.

School leaders cannot assume these students will receive appropriate treatment outside of school, since approximately one-third of all adolescents who receive mental health care are served only in the setting of their school. This is particularly true for students who identify as members of a racial or ethnic minority or who come from a low-income household. Responding appropriately to these students’ needs will take the involvement of all staff members with mental-health training, including school counselors, psychologists, social workers, and nurses. Schools with enough specialized staff can offer individual and group-based interventions, such as Cognitive Behavior Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS). Multiple studies have demonstrated that students who participate in a CBITS program experience significant improvement in self-reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress compared to a control group. For schools with fewer trained staff members, establishing care plans and scheduling frequent check-ins with at-risk students and their families can also support students with mental health needs, according to the Suicide Prevention Resource Center.

Regardless of the intervention approach, it is important to ensure that administrative and instructional staff all have a shared understanding regarding the importance of these interventions. And it is critical to remember that there will always be some students whose needs are too urgent or intensive to be served within the school setting. Intensive interventions should be handled in collaboration with external partners.

Attend to staff needs

No mental healthcare plan would be complete without considering the needs of the adults in the building, especially those in student-facing roles. The past year—full of sleepless nights, radical changes to instruction, long hours, unexpected childcare duties, and worries about safety for their students and themselves—has taken a toll on educators. A Louisiana study found that the prevalence of clinically significant symptoms of depression had almost doubled among early childhood educators. And in another study, approximately 85 percent of teachers reported that their mental health had declined compared to the previous year.

The recovery period already threatens to be a pressure-cooker for teachers. They are burdened with the expectation to make up for months of lost learning while also accommodating students’ heightened social and emotional needs. Proactive planning can help educators feel supported in their work and decrease instances of burnout that may lead to turnover and ineffective instructional environments.

Developing an organizational culture in which frank and open conversations can occur about staff emotions and mental health takes time, but schools and districts can nonetheless teach strategies and create structures that lay the groundwork for a healthy and open workplace.

First and foremost, schools should ensure that staff members have appropriate access to mental health care, such as counselors or therapists. Adequate coverage must be available so that staff have the ability to take the time they need to address their healthcare and personal needs. These basic supports can be bolstered by building in intentional opportunities for staff to connect with each other, whether by having periodic check-ins, developing mentorship relationships, or creating opportunities to socialize or decompress with other adults in the school community. To ensure educators take advantage of these supports, it can be productive for leaders to model emotional vulnerability and help-seeking behaviors. That helps staff to view these practices as indicators of strength rather than weakness.

It is also important to encourage stress-management strategies, such as healthy eating, exercise, adequate sleep, and relaxation techniques, including by weaving them into school culture. In particular, mindfulness practices have been shown to be effective in helping teachers manage occupational stress. There are a variety of models and resources that organizations can adopt depending on their unique circumstances. The Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE) professional-development program, which teaches mindfulness techniques, has been shown to improve teacher well-being, efficacy, burnout, and stress. Freely available resources such as Diana Tikasz’s excellent Pause-Reset-Nourish framework can also be helpful.

Above and beyond these practices, leadership should pay particular attention to staff members who seem to have difficulty coping with the challenges of their role and offer support as needed. Educators working in areas of high poverty or high trauma may be at risk of developing secondary traumatic stress (STS), in which they experience trauma due to hearing about the traumatic experiences of their students. While similar to burnout in terms of its external expression, STS is often not alleviated by a change in occupational environment. Particular educators may be more susceptible, including those who have experienced trauma themselves, are highly empathetic or inexperienced, or who work in communities that have experienced elevated levels of poverty, crime, or tragic events. The organization Support for Teachers Affected by Trauma offers a free training program to help educators recognize symptoms and engage in protective strategies.

As the adage goes, you need to put on your own oxygen mask first before helping others. Once we’ve done that, we’re better equipped to get through this turbulence together.

Reading List

American School Counselor Association and National Association of School Psychologists. (2020). “School Reentry Considerations: Supporting Student Social and Emotional Learning and Mental and Behavioral Health Amidst COVID-19.”

Baicker, K. (2020). The Impact of Secondary Trauma on Educators. Stress-Busting Strategies for Educators, 15(13).

Bath, H. (2008). The Three Pillars of Trauma-Informed Care. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17(3), 17-21.

Dinnen, H., Cody, M., Jordan, E., & Meehan, C. “Referral Pathways Protocol for Mental Health Supports.” Project AWARE Ohio, Ohio Department of Education.

Langley, A. K., Nadeem, E., Kataoka, S. H., Stein, B. D., & Jaycox, L. H. (2010). Evidence-based mental health programs in schools: Barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. School Mental Health, 2(3), 105-113.

LearnWell (2020). “Addressing K–12 Students’ Emerging Mental Health Needs.”

Minahan, J. (October 2019). Trauma-Informed Teaching Strategies. Educational Leadership, 77(2), 30-35.

Naff, D.B., Williams, S., Furman, J., & Lees, M. (2020). “Supporting Student Mental Health During and After COVID-19.” Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.

Romer, N., von der Embse, N., Eklund, K., Kilgus, S., Perales, K., Splett, J. W., Sudlo, S., Wheeler, D., (2020). “Best Practices in Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Screening: An Implementation Guide. Version 2.0.” School Mental Health Collaborative.

Stiegler, K., and Lever, N. (2008). “Summary of Recognized Evidence-Based Programs Implemented by Expanded School Mental Health (ESMH) Programs.” Center for School Mental Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). “SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach.” HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The overriding problem with President Biden’s education scheme, as presented in his grandiose “American Families” package, is its focus on more schooling rather than more learning. Ever since 1983, when President Reagan’s national commission declared the U.S. a “nation at risk” due to the weak knowledge and skills of our students and the shoddy performance of our schools, every president and Congress until now—and almost every governor and legislature—has concentrated on boosting school outcomes, raising student achievement, and reducing learning gaps. That has mostly entailed higher academic standards, rigorous assessments, and results-based accountability regimens for both schools and their pupils, plus the creation of affordable high-quality alternatives for children trapped in shoddy, unfixable schools. 

The Biden team seems to be abandoning all that and reverting to a time when it was erroneously believed that more school inputs and offerings would yield more learning. In fact, we’ve known since 1966 that that’s mostly wrong. That was when a major LBJ-era study by the eminent sociologist James Coleman showed the weak link between what goes into schools by way of resources and what comes out by way of achievement—and equality. Yet the White House plan would expand today’s typical thirteen years of free public schooling into seventeen years by adding universal pre-K for three- and four-year-olds, plus two years of free community college after high school.

This recalls a quip by former education secretary William Bennett about the inept chef with a lousy recipe for inedible omelets adding more eggs to his mixing bowl with the expectation that the result will be tastier.

Of course, we can’t have any sort of schooling without money, yet the return on additional investment is iffy. Many charter and Catholic schools produce stronger results for similar kids than nearby district schools, yet manage to do this with leaner budgets. “More” may boost results if shrewdly directed and carefully spent, but just pumping in more dollars, more teachers, more hours in the day, more homework, more years of schooling cannot be counted upon to place the nation any less at risk educationally, while it assuredly fattens the “education establishment” and siphons more money from taxpayers.

Though its popular appeal is obvious, the preschool part of the Biden plan is particularly misguided. It carries an enormous price tag—$200 billion, five times the U.S. Education Department’s total annual K–12 spending and twenty times the current Head Start budget. It would be accompanied by heavy-handed federal regulation of preschooling, with an emphasis on expanding downward the age of entry into public schools. It would provide a huge and unnecessary (if doubtless welcome) cash windfall to millions of upper-middle-class families, plus states, districts, and private organizations that have already figured out how to deliver and pay for the preschooling they want. It ignores families that still prefer to do all this outside of institutional settings, reading to their kids, taking them places, getting them socialized by playing with other children, perhaps under the watchful eye of a neighbor or relative. Sure, lots of parents will embrace a government offer to look after their three- and four-year-olds under school roofs while they go to work (or whatever). But in the long run does that strengthen or weaken the American family? Keep in mind that Biden is also proposing a huge expansion of paid parental leave precisely so more moms and dads can be home with their little ones—plus many billions more for child care.

Most egregious of all for a “progressive,” equity-driven administration, by universalizing access to free pre-K, the White House plan will fail to deliver the intensive early-childhood interventions, all the way from birth to kindergarten, that would do the most good for the poorest and neediest kids and their mostly young and single moms or struggling grandmothers.

Those intensive, targeted services to low-income babies and toddlers need not be limited to public schools—or schools at all—though that’s where the Biden plan would send the money in yet another of its panderings to teachers unions. They’re best done by home-based, church-based, and other kinds of programs, many run by non-profit groups that send experts and peers—often bilingual—to coach adult caregivers, to supply learning materials for young children, and to help organize parents and community cooperatives and informal preschool experiences that actually equip needy tykes with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in kindergarten and beyond. 

But succeeding in school should be the point—and pressing the education system to deliver successful students, students who by the end of high school are truly equipped with the knowledge and skills required for a successful entry into adulthood and responsible citizenship, whether their first stop is college, a job, the military, or something else. The Biden plan, so far as we can tell at this point, just wants to crack a lot more high-priced eggs into the education mixing bowl.

Intensive, sophisticated, multi-year early childhood education targeted on the neediest kids would be a fine thing to do more of. So would voucher-style supplements for poor and working-class families that cannot afford the preschooling they want for their children but don’t necessarily want to entrust their three- and four-year-olds to the nearest public school. (The expanded child tax credits and other income supplements already raining down on millions of families may suffice.) But simply expanding schools to sweep in more kids is worse than a waste of money, especially when the schools to be expanded have long been failing with their present assignment.

Editor’s note: This essay was first published by The Hill.

First implemented in the 2013–14 school year, Ohio’s third grade reading guarantee has aimed to ensure that all children have the foundational reading skills needed to navigate more challenging material. The early literacy policy has many facets, including fall reading diagnostic assessment in grades K–3, mandatory parental notification and reading improvement plans if a child is deemed off-track, and retention and intensive interventions if a student doesn’t achieve a benchmark score on a third grade exam.

This early warning and intervention system was created in part as a response to research showing a link between children’s early literacy skills and their academic outcomes later in life. The most influential analysis was a 2011 Annie E. Casey Foundation report that found non-proficient readers in third grade were far more likely to drop out of high school than their peers. Subsequent analyses have uncovered similar results. An analysis of Ohio data discovered that non-proficient readers in third grade were three times more likely to not graduate. A recent study of Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington State data found that students who struggle to read in third grade take fewer advanced high school courses and have lower graduation rates.

Despite the well-documented importance of early literacy, the third grade reading guarantee has endured much criticism. The attacks have largely centered on the mandatory retention policy that critics have decried as punitive. Of course, that’s hardly the intention. It’s there to ensure that children struggling to read aren’t being robotically passed to the next grade, but actually receive the extra help they need. The policy is also supported by rigorous studies from Florida and Chicago showing that retention in early grades can give low-achieving students an academic boost.

Despite the criticisms of retention, schools have not been required to hold back many third graders. In the years the guarantee has been in effect, promotional rates have ranged between 93 and 96 percent, even though third grade reading proficiency rates have been much lower (67 percent in 2018–19). These sky-high promotional rates are explained by allowances for alternative assessments, exemptions for certain students, and a low promotional bar. In 2018–19, for example, students had to achieve a score of 677 on the state third grade ELA exam to be promoted—barely above the basic level.[1]

A recent bill introduced by House lawmakers (HB 73) wouldn’t just weaken the retention requirement; it would scrap it altogether. In committee hearings, familiar objections to the policy have been raised. But one witness suggested, in a new twist, that the reading guarantee isn’t working as intended. His claims were based on a 2019 Ohio State University analysis of fourth grade NAEP reading scores, which while informative, offer a limited snapshot of achievement patterns in the years in which the reading guarantee has been in effect (the 2017 and 2019 rounds are arguably the only ones that apply). What wasn’t examined, however, were trends in third grade ELA state test scores. This was likely due to transitions in state exams that left only a year or two of consistent test scores at the time of that study. But we now have four consecutive years of data from the same state exam, so we can get a more complete picture of achievement trends under the reading guarantee law.

Lo and behold, we do see noticeable improvements in the state assessment data. Figure 1 displays the results for all Ohio third graders. We see an uptick in proficiency rates—from 55 percent in 2015–16 to 67 percent in 2018–19. Also noteworthy, given the guarantee’s focus on struggling readers, is the substantial decline in students scoring at the lowest achievement level. Twenty-seven percent of Ohio third graders performed at the limited level in 2015–16, while roughly half that percentage did so in 2018–19. Given the generally small and constant numbers of retained students over this period, it’s highly unlikely that the increases are due to students retaking third grade exams. The more probable explanation is that Ohio schools are improving their early literacy practices—perhaps even in response to the threat of retention—and children are reaping the benefits. 

Figure 1: Results on Ohio’s third grade ELA exams, all students

Source (figures 1-3): Ohio Department of Education, Advanced Reports

Figure 2 shows data for economically disadvantaged students. Although they generally score at lower levels than the statewide average—reflecting well-documented achievement gaps—we also see promising signs of improvement. In 2015–16, just 40 percent of economically disadvantaged students scored proficient or above on their third grade ELA exams; that number increased to 54 percent by 2018–19. We also see a substantial decrease in the percentage of these students who score at the limited level.

Figure 2: Results on Ohio’s third grade ELA exams, economically disadvantaged students

Figure 3 displays third grade ELA test data for Black students. We again observe marked improvements. Proficiency rates rose by 16 percentage points from 2015–16 to 2018–19, along with a large decline in the number of Black students scoring at the lowest level on the state test.  

Figure 3: Results on Ohio’s third grade ELA exams, Black students

To be sure, these data show that Ohio still has work to do to ensure all children exit third grade with solid literacy skills. Given the pandemic-related learning losses—likely worse in the early elementary grades—this imperative will become even more urgent in the months ahead. Weakening the reading guarantee isn’t the way to drive these much-needed improvements in early literacy. Rather, lawmakers would be smart to stay the course on policy reforms that seem to be working for Ohio students.

In praise of the federal Charter School Program

Keith Jacobs from Step Up For Students in Florida penned a great analysis of the many ways in which funds from the federal Charter School Program have helped expand opportunities for children in the Sunshine State…including his own.

The life and strange times of a charter warrior

Idaho Education News this week featured an in-depth profile of Terry Ryan, the CEO of Bluum, a charter school support nonprofit organization in the Gem State. Terry’s tireless work in support of quality education for all children included more than 10 years in the Gem City, leading the Fordham Foundation’s pioneering charter authorization and advocacy efforts from Dayton.

More from Dayton

Dayton City Schools approved a $17 million contract with First Student this week, effectively outsourcing the transportation of resident students attending private and charter schools. The article does not give any details as to how the contractor will work with schools of choice and their students, but it is to be hoped that a singular focus on those students’ needs will yield better service than they have experienced in many years.

Ruling

The Ohio Supreme Court this week ruled in favor of a group of charter schools across the state. The schools had argued that the Ohio Department of Education unlawfully excluded them from Quality Charter School funding when it was awarded. The state is required by the ruling to pay the schools more than $7 million dollars.

Cleveland senior lauded

Alysha Ginel is a hard-charging high school senior in the Cleveland area who started her own business to help fund her ambitious college plans. She told her story to WKYC-TV this week, explaining she taught herself math in middle school but didn’t know whether she had done it right until she took her high school placement test and knocked it out of the park. She is now valedictorian of that (charter) high school and heading to the University of Pennsylvania for undergrad in the fall. Kudos!

Lauding more seniors

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers is looking for outstanding members of the Class of 2021. Their #CharterGrads campaign is accepting submissions from charter schools across the country of seniors from your school or state who have excelled. Their stories will be highlighted on social media and the NACSA website throughout graduation season. Have some great senior stories? Submit them here before May 28!

*****

Did you know you can have every edition of the Ohio Charter News Weekly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

1. Those of you with good memories will no doubt recall that eligibility criteria for the state’s Quality Charter School funding was a source of some discussion in 2019 and 2020. A group of charters who were eventually determined not eligible sued the state, arguing that the Ohio Department of Education unlawfully excluded them when funding was awarded. Well, the Supreme Court this week ruled in favor of those schools and the state now appears bound to pay them more than $7 million. Yowza. (Toledo Blade, 5/19/21)
    
2. You will not need as good a memory to recall the most recent time you heard about Dayton City Schools’ transportation travails. Well, supposedly those longstanding issues, affecting largely charter and private school students in the city, have been solved. You can read about how district officials think this will come to pass in this piece if you want. However, there are several other pieces of information completely unremarked upon in that piece, upon which I would like to remark (I’ll bet you can easily remember the last time I said that!) First, we learned that while there are 12,500-ish students attending district schools today, there are at least 9,000 resident students attending charter/private schools. That’s kinda big, right? And indeed that doesn’t even take into account online charter or homeschool students. Does it seem as likely to you as it does to me that there are more non-district students than district students resident in Dayton? Interesting. Second, the ongoing, years-long transportation debacle for those choice students is being “solved” by throwing $17 million in one-time federal coronavirus relief money to First Student to take care of those 9,000 kids. Even if it is successful this time around, where’s the next year’s pile of cash going to come from? Third, there is no discussion at all as to how this third party entity is going to work with charter and private schools to determine routes, schedules, etc. Not that it won’t happen—although similar previous third part payouts didn’t work out at all—it simply seems that no one really cares at this point except charter school leaders. Fourth, the district somehow thinks that this contract is going to solve the lack of bus drivers in the area. Newsflash: It’s the same number of kids, guys! The same number of buses, the same number of routes. You’ve only succeeded in splitting them up between two entities now hiring drivers; no new drivers were evanesced into existence via this plan. Here’s hoping there’s a ton more detail—and a ton more coverage—on the horizon. (Dayton Daily News, 5/20/21)
   
   

3. And you need only cast your mind back to Wednesday’s Bites to recall the reason why your humble clips compiler finds this piece to be somewhat offputting. It is a look a Cleveland Metropolitan School District’s summer program to make up for “knurled knowledge knowing” (or whatever we’re calling pandemic-induced learning loss these days). On Wednesday, we heard about how excited young Killian Mason was to have a summer school that looked like “a normal year”, what with all the remote learning and stuff. (And CMSD kids had waaaaay more of that than almost anyone else.) But instead we get multiple iterations of “summer school has a stigma” and “kids don’t want to come because it’s a punishment” and the like. Just stop, you people! If there’s any stigmatizing going on, it’s the adults doing so, even if the language they use is inadvertent. Although it seems a bit more deliberate to me. Take for example two quotes from the same teacher in this piece: On the one hand, she tells The 74, “Here’s the reality: The kids who most need to be caught up won’t come to a summer school if they don’t enjoy it. If we think of summer school as more of the same, drilling facts into their heads, the same kids will stay behind.” But later, while talking about the instruction she will lead over the summer, she says, “I am so excited. Four weeks of classes, 80 minutes a day. We are going to get so much done.” We need less of the former, more of the latter, and a handful of math, science, and reading teachers who feel the same. (The 74, 5/20/21)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

Much has been written on the proclivities and idiosyncrasies of billionaire magnate and education provocateur Eli Broad, who passed away late last month at the age of eighty-seven. A self-proclaimed “venture philanthropist,” Broad began making his mark on education in the early aughts—though his support for ed-related issues started much earlier—by opening his deep pocketbook to reforming urban public school systems and investing heavily in attracting new talent to our sector. His education legacy will continue to be hotly debated—as will his style, an aggressive involvement and legendary impatience that could put people off—but on substance, love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with the problem Broad initially sought to rectify: the excessively bureaucratic, overly politicized, and woefully underperforming big city school district, as typified by his adopted hometown system, Los Angeles Unified.

The most public face of this effort was the Broad Prize for Urban Education, which at one point—along with the accompanying $1 million award—was considered the nation’s most prestigious recognition for large urban districts, akin to winning the Super Bowl.[1] Yet even as Broad’s Foundation was awarding these prizes, reform-oriented district chiefs from Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein to Cami Anderson and Mike Miles were being pushed from their perches, and by 2015 Broad had abandoned this strategy. Fast forward to today: With the head of Chicago Public Schools recently announcing her plans to depart, the top posts at the nation’s three largest districts will have turned over this year. The never-ending churn has led to renewed criticisms that urban school districts are impervious to change and ultimately ungovernable, raising the question of whether Broad was right to try to improve them in the first place. Should he have known better?

It’s an intriguing question, but perhaps an even better one is why he stuck with big urban districts for as long as he did. Indeed, Broad was a big believer in the traditional public system, having grown up and attended schools in Detroit when labor politics was still a rough and tumble sport. His father was a union organizer, and from him Broad internalized the importance of trying to work with unions and taking calculated risks to do so. To wit, he was the only philanthropic backer when then New York City union leader Randi Weingarten wanted to start a charter school in Brooklyn back in 2005. The experiment failed. But if it hadn’t, Broad might have co-opted the unions’ hostility towards charters and choice, an antipathy that has only deepened during the intervening years.

Although there’s a widespread perception that Broad shifted his focus from traditional districts to charter networks, in fact he had long taken a vigorous and muscular approach towards both. With urban systems, Broad understood the crucial role of governance and accountability, which is why he was a diehard proponent of mayoral control. While it didn’t work out in his own backyard in Los Angeles, he pressed hard for it in other locales, with his influence most felt in the Big Apple and the nation’s capital. This footprint extended to Broad’s backing of teacher merit pay programs in both cities. On charters, Broad was an early and plucky investor in their incubation, development, and expansion, a dedication well documented in his giving.

Broad’s support for education reform was as wide as it was deep. From teaming up with his best friend, former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan, to install a reform-oriented school board and bankrolling various academies and residencies focused on elevating game-changing leadership, to underwriting bold if ill-fated policy campaigns and raising millions for after-school programs, his influence is difficult to overstate. Broad drove the development of what would become President Obama’s Race to the Top, and his generous giving to Democrats and their causes served as something of a counterweight to the outsized financial influence of the teachers unions.

What’s more, Broad helped to organize some of our nation’s top education donors, including Walton, Gates, Fisher, Robertson, Hastings, and the Arnolds. His passing leaves a sizable hole not just as a funder, but also as a strategist and advocate—a role that fit synergistically with his temperamental inability to accept the status quo, a stance he also brought to many other realms besides education. Even after he gave up on urban districts as the unit of change, Broad was undaunted in his convictions. “I’ve never been afraid of failure,” he once said, “and the worst thing that can happen is—nothing changes.”

We may be seeing more of that today. The pandemic has only emboldened the forces of resistance and repeal at a time when large districts need to get serious about pulling in the same direction if their students are to have a shot at getting back on track.

If Broad’s adopted home in the City of Angels is any indication, the prospects are grim. To wit, the district just abandoned its plan to extend the upcoming school year, and by doing so showed its inability even to go through the motions of putting students’ interests first. It’s this type of bureaucratic (and union) intransigence that undoubtedly sowed frustration with the restless philanthropist, but it didn’t deter Broad from ambitious designs like the one he backed to place half of Los Angeles’s students in charter schools—earning him a special kind of ire from the teachers union. To his credit, Broad never seemed to be troubled by the blowback. As he once remarked, “We don’t mind taking risks. We don’t mind being criticized, at times even being hung in effigy.”

Broad’s holistic strategy included investments in charter intermediaries, as well as donations to charter-friendly school board candidates. Unlike the laundry list of maladies that continue to afflict urban systems, the evidence base behind high-quality charter schools is unimpeachable. As my colleagues Mike Petrilli and David Griffith have noted:

Our back-of-the-envelope arithmetic suggests that moving from 25 percent to 50 percent charter market share in urban areas could cut the achievement gap in half for at least 2.5 million Black and Latino students in the coming decade. And of course, with more equitable funding, improved oversight, and an expanded role for truly high-performing networks, the dividends might be even larger. With so much to be gained for America’s most poorly served children, there is simply no reason not to prioritize the expansion of charter-school policies and programs in the years ahead.

Suffice to say, the difference in ROI between charter schools and traditional ones in the urban context couldn’t be clearer. Yet Eli Broad ought not be faulted for trying to sway the direction of America’s urban districts, if only because, collectively, these institutions serve north of eight million students, over 70 percent of whom are Black or Hispanic and poor. If anything, we need more civic leaders like Broad who are willing to put in the time, money, and sweat for our most marginalized students, not in spite of, but because of the overwhelming odds.

[1] I remember this well because during a conversation I had many years ago with a state official about the possibility of a local district vying for the prize, he turned to me and deadpanned, “Super Bowl? More like the toilet bowl.” By which he meant the district’s academic performance was in the proverbial crapper.

According to U.S. Census data, 23 percent of students in America’s K–12 schools were either first- or second-generation immigrant children in 2015. That was up from 11 percent in 1990 and 7 percent in 1980. This demographic shift required big changes in schools to support those children and their families, especially in areas with exceptional concentrations of immigrant children. What impacts did this influx and the associated changes have on U.S.-born students? The research base is limited, but a new analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research shines light on this question.

The research team made use of longitudinal data from Florida to address two perennial sticking points in studying this question. First, immigrant students are not randomly assigned to schools and in fact are more likely to enroll in schools educating students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Second, U.S.-born students may decide to leave when large numbers of immigrant students enter their school. Thus, posit the analysts, the negative impacts of immigrant students on U.S.-born students found in previous analyses may not have been accurately evaluated.

With the Florida data, the researchers were able to identify siblings in different grades in the same schools and use their differing levels of exposure to immigrant peers—as well as their responses to it—to build what they judge to be a more accurate model of impact. Instead of a full-cohort analysis as is typically done, they compare math and reading test scores of siblings who experience different cumulative exposures to immigrants based on their ages and grade levels. Additionally, they compare the school-transition experiences of siblings based on their relative exposures to immigrant students. That is, two siblings who start in the same school in different years are held to have the same probability of changing schools over the years, absent the variation in immigrant exposure. This creates a measure of “native flight” against which the academic outcome findings can be compared.

When this model is run, the traditionally-observed negative impacts of immigrant exposure on U.S.-born students’ academic outcomes are actually reversed. All students exposed to immigrants perform better, and this occurs independent of the actual performance level of the immigrant students themselves. The researchers explain that, “[m]oving from the 10th to the 90th percentile in the distribution of cumulative exposure (1 percent and 13 percent, respectively) increases the score in mathematics and reading by 2.8 percent and 1.7 percent of a standard deviation, respectively. The effect is double in size for disadvantaged students.” For White and wealthy U.S.-born students, the effect is still positive but much smaller. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is just those students from more advantaged backgrounds—youngsters for whom a higher number of acceptable choices are available—who are more likely to exit their schools when immigrant concentrations grow. Those students who remain experience the academic boost. For Black students, however, the positive effect of immigrant exposure appears in both models, perhaps because they’re not “taking flight” in either case.

What might be causing the boost? Parental education level and cultural influence from the country of origin are part of the answer in terms of magnitude, but something else must be involved because the boost appears regardless of immigrant students’ own performance level. The researchers investigate two possibilities: that more resources are available to schools with higher concentrations of immigrant students, and that there is an inherent positive impact of diversity on learning. Neither theory can be proven with the available data. So we don’t know exactly what the mechanism is. We are simply left with the observation that an increase in immigrant exposure boosts academic outcomes for almost all U.S.-born students in a school, but that this boost is only achieved when a specific segment of U.S.-born students leave that school in response to same.

The findings are simultaneously compelling and depressing. If the mechanism at play could be understood, perhaps it could be harnessed to help all students. And with a baby bust underway here in the U.S., the percentage of immigrant students in U.S. classrooms could continue to climb, making that effort even more important going forward.

SOURCE: David N. Figlio, Paola Giuliano, Riccardo Marchingiglio, Umut Özek, and Paola Sapienza, “Diversity in Schools: Immigrants and the Educational Performance of U.S. Born Students,” National Bureau of Economic Research (March 2021).

• Here’s what these high school students went through as they tried to weather life during the pandemic. —New York Times
• Universal preschool, if not implemented correctly, could have unintended, negative consequences. —EdSurge
• “Trying to fight educational inequality by getting rid of the SAT is like trying to fight climate change by getting rid of thermometers.” —Freddie deBoer
• Experts worry that Biden’s plan to get more students into community college will leave existing problems unaddressed. —WSJ
• Educator Erin McLaughlin is on a mission to get viewpoint diversity at the center of K–12 schools’ cultures and instructional practices. —The Atlantic
• “What is critical race theory, and why is it under attack?” —EdWeek

Cheers

• “Common Core is a meal kit, not a nothingburger.” —Caroline Damon
• The pipeline to STEM courses and careers begins in elementary school. —Andrew Rotherham
• Texas will reward its best teachers in high-poverty schools with more than $100,000 annually to tackle pandemic learning loss. —The 74
• Terry Ryan left a mark on Idaho education, and he is still at it. —Idaho Education News
• Two professors argue that if Kentucky wants educational investments that pay off, they should turn to school choice. —Northern Kentucky Tribune

Jeers

• “California leftists try to cancel math class.” —WSJ
• Some schools teaching critical race theory are bumping against the law. —Education Next