TEACHER TRAINING: Who is Really Running the Schools

Image result for images of jail for kids


Who is Really Running the Schools?

Author found the document below which appears to have been authored by the “National Association of School Psychologists” ( http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/School_Discipline_Congressional_Briefing.pdf).  The Eugenicists, Social Darwinists, racial and ethnic cleansers or “hygienicists” and professional managerial and directorial level misogynists have landed.  Now Iauthor of this post understands what all the teachers were talking about when they reported that most all of the new teachers right out of college were being pushed out of the profession and discouraged from continuing before their careers even started.  That was just after the new millenium kicked-off.

One might even go so far as to call them professional con/tract killers.

Read between lines –certain words are written, or, “coded,” to mean the opposite of their intended meaning or perceived meaning by the average American layperson or the general public.

Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware”).

Effective School Discipline Policy and Practice:

Supporting Student Learning

Effective school discipline is critical to promoting students’ successful learning and well-being. Effective practices ensure the safety and dignity of all students and staff, preserve the integrity of the learning environment [ or judicial, legal, “helping,” “protecting,” and law enforcement systems for “sustainable” until the age-end-at 21/Agenda 21 con tract expires and the federal state block grant funding, or “water fawcett” keeps flowing for the “school-to-prison pipeline“], and address the causes of a student’s misbehavior in order to improve positive behavioral skills and long-term outcomes.

Specifically, effective school discipline:

 is viewed within the context of a learning opportunity and seeks to teach and reinforce positive behaviors to replace negative behaviors;

 is clear, consistent, and equitably applied to all students;

 employs culturally competent practices;

 safeguards the well-being of all students and staff;

 keeps students in school and out of the juvenile justice system; and

 incorporates family involvement.

In contrast, purely punitive “get tough” approaches such as zero tolerance policies do not work.

They simply suppress unwanted behavior temporarily while increasing negative consequences, such as reduced perceptions of safety and connectedness among students and the perpetuation of the school-to-prison pipeline.

While the robust research on the negative effects of overly harsh discipline has grown exponentially in recent years, it has been known for decades.

1 . One “evidence-based” approach that has demonstrated broad success in many different school contexts across the country is positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS).

The PBIS approach operates within a multitiered system of supports (MTSS) framework that encompasses universal prevention and skills building, early identification and intervention, and targeted supports for learning and behavioral concerns.

This approach has proven instrumental in enabling schools to shift from ineffective punitive discipline to more effective positive discipline that functions in concert with efforts to support students’ mental health and promote positive school climate and safety.

Legislative Priorities School safety, positive school climate, and effective discipline practices are key components of a successful school.

One of the most important investments we can make in improving student outcomes and stopping the school-to-prison pipeline is to support public policies that:

 promote a shift to more effective positive discipline;

 ensure safe, supportive conditions for learning;

 provide comprehensive and coordinated learning supports to address student social–emotional wellness, positive behavior, and academic achievement;

 provide training and support for teachers and other school personnel; and

 ensure access to specialized instructional support personnel.

Several pieces of legislation have been introduced in the 113th Congress directly address these policy priorities. Mental Health Awareness and Improvement Act of 2013 S. 689.

This bill would allow states to use Title I [historically and generally known or purported to a funding program for parent participation in the schools in defined low income areas]funds to expand the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and early intervening services to improve student academic achievement and behavior. 2

Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2013, H.R. 1199 & S. 403.

This bill establishes policies that prohibit bullying and harassment in schools. It also encourages the use of positive and preventative approaches to school discipline that minimize students’ removal from instruction.

Partnerships for Achieving Student Success Act (Introduced April 16).

This bill would authorize grant funding for university–school district partnerships to increase the number of school psychologists, counselors, and social workers in schools.

Student Support Act, H.R. 320.

Allows for grants to increase the number of school mental health services providers—like school psychologists, social workers, and counselors—in order to provide more early intervention and prevention services.

Youth PROMISE Act, H.R. 1318. Enables communities, in collaboration with schools, social services, mental health providers, and other community stakeholders, to develop coordinated prevention and intervention strategies to target students at risk of entering the juvenile justice system. Selected Supporting Research Fair and Consistent Discipline

 Consistent enforcement of school discipline and the availability of caring adults are associated with less bullying and victimization, suggesting that discipline practices should not be polarized into a “get tough” versus “give support” debate because both contribute to adolescents’ healthy functioning2 .

 Students who perceive greater fairness and clarity of rules in their schools exhibit less delinquent behavior and experience less student victimization3,4 .

 Students view teachers as reacting to classroom misbehavior by increasing coercive discipline, which inhibits the development of responsibility in students

5 . More school rules and higher perceived strictness predict more disruptive behavior in school—not less, and more severe punishments generate defiance among certain youth

6 . Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

 School-wide behavior management that is implemented by supportive leadership and dedicated and collegial staff can help minimize the risks for youth delinquency7 .

 Positive behavioral interventions and supports have been shown to significantly reduce student suspensions, office discipline referrals

8 , tardiness, unexcused absences

9 , bullying, and feelings of rejection among students

10 , while improving academic performance


  School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports are associated with more equitable discipline practices among students from all racial and ethnic backgrounds13 .

 The more family and community involvement activities are implemented, the fewer students are disciplined by being sent to principals’ offices or given detention or in-school suspension.

Thus, creating more connections [ as in, The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, Re-Authorized 2010]and greater cooperation among the school, family, and community contexts helps schools to improve student behavior and school discipline

14 . Social and Emotional Development

 Students who participate in school-based social and emotional learning programs show significant improvement in social and emotional skills, caring attitudes, and positive social behaviors, and a decline in disruptive behavior and emotional distress15 .3

 Social and emotional learning programs have significant preventive effects on rates of aggression, social competence, and academic engagement in the elementary school years

16 . School-Based Mental Health Services

 School-based mental health services are integral to students’ success because mental health directly affects children’s learning and development17 .

 School-based mental health services in elementary schools have been found to reduce special education referrals and improve aspects of the school climate18 .

 Reduced absences, discipline referrals

19, and conduct problems are evident in children with severe emotional and behavioral difficulties when school-based mental health services are available

20 . School-Employed Specialized Instructional Support Personnel

More support personnel are needed to support teachers, who cite student discipline problems ???  Re-Read this statement.

21, lack of student motivation22, and issues with work place conditions or the administration as reasons for leaving the profession—issues that specialized instructional support personnel are trained to address23.

 School psychologists work with teachers and administrators to collect and analyze data on risk and protective factors related to student outcomes24, and there is evidence that addressing these factors in schools promotes children’s well-being and resilience25 .

 Data from nearly 500 studies indicate that the impact of promotion and prevention interventions is at least two to three times higher when programs are carefully implemented by qualified personnel who have expert knowledge of the relevant issues being addressed26 .

Zero Tolerance Policies

 Zero tolerance policies strengthen the link between schools and prisons

27,28, and they negatively impact a disproportionately large number of minority students 29 .

 Empirical evidence has not shown zero tolerance policies to be effective in reducing violence or promoting learning. In fact, they can inhibit academic achievement and increase problem behaviors and dropout rates among middle and secondary school students30,31 .

 Zero tolerance policies ignore adolescents’ lapses in judgment—a normal part of their development, potentially resulting in more severe punishment than is warranted and exacerbating the normal challenges of adolescence32,33 . Suspension, Expulsion, and Office Disciplinary Referrals [veiled threat not to step out-of-line with the other Nazi SS followers and criminal psychopaths who are “just doing their job,” or, “trying to support their family.”]

 Student discipline is increasingly viewed by American schools as a crime control issue34, with many states criminalizing student misbehavior and referring students to the juvenile justice system for infractions that were once handled in the schools 35,36,37 .

 In Texas, more than 275,000 nontraffic tickets are issued to juveniles each year, the vast majority for common school-related misbehavior

38. And tens of thousands of Texas students have been placed at least once in juvenile justice alternative education programs39 .

 Suspension and expulsion are often administered unfairly and they increase the likelihood of students’ poor academic performance and dropping out of school40, while having no measurable deterrent effect or academic benefit

41. Even worse, there is a direct link between suspension and expulsion and the likelihood of being sentenced to prison42 . 4

 More than 3,328,000 students were suspended and more than 102,000 expelled from public elementary and secondary schools in 200643. Overall, more than 29% of all public school students in grades 9–12 in 2007 had ever been suspended or expelled.

 Referring students to the juvenile justice system can actually increase their involvement in serious delinquency44 .

 Disciplinary actions are harsher and employed more frequently with minority students. In 2007, 49% of Black students and 27% of Hispanic students were suspended or expelled, compared to 15% of White students

45 . Black students are also more than twice as likely in elementary school and nearly four times as likely in middle school,  . . . to be referred to the principal’s office for problem behaviors.46 .


1 Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Free Press. 2 Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T.-H., & Huang, F. (2010).

Authoritative school discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 483–496. 3 Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005).

School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412–444. 4 Stewart, E. A. (2003).

School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior: A multilevel analysis.   Justice Quarterly, 20, 575–604. 5 Lewis, T. J., Jones, S. E. L., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2010).

School-wide positive behavior support and students with emotional/behavioral disorders: Implications for prevention, identification and intervention. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 18, 82–93. 6 Way, S. M. (2011).

School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 346–375. 7 Christie, C., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, D. M. (2005).

Breaking the school to prison pipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 13, 69–88. 8 Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010).

Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148. 9 Caldarella, P., Shatzer, R. H., Gray, K. M., Young, K. R. & Young, E. L. (2011).

The effects of school-wide positive behavior support on middle school climate and student outcomes. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 35(4), 1–14. 10 Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2012).

The impact of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on bullying and peer rejection. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 166, 149–156. 11 Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005).

Whole-school positive behavior support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25, 183–198. 12 Nelson, J. R., Martella, R. M., & Marchand-Martella, N. (2002).

Maximizing student learning: The effects of a comprehensive school-based program for preventing problem behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disorders, 10, 136–148. 13 Vincent, C. G., Swain-Bradway, J., Tobin, T. J., & May, S. (2011).

Disciplinary referrals for culturally and linguistically diverse students with and without disabilities: Patterns resulting from school-wide positive behavior support. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 19, 175–190. 14 Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002).

Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 4–26. 15 Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011).

The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. 16 Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., McMahon, R. J., & Pinderhughes, E. (2010).

The effects of a multiyear universal social-emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 156–168. 17 Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., Brown, E. C., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., Mazza, J. J., & Gruman, D. H. (2005).

Do social and behavioral characteristics targeted by preventive interventions predict standardized test scores and grades? Journal of School Health, 75, 342–349. 18 Bruns, E. J., Walrath, C., Glass-Siegel, M., & Weist, M. D. (2004).

School-based mental health services in Baltimore: Association with school climate and special education referrals. Behavior Modification, 28, 491–512. 19 Jennings, J., Pearson, G., & Harris, M. (2000).

Implementing and maintaining school–based mental health services in a large, urban school district. Journal of School Health, 70, 201–205. 20 Hussey, D., & Guo, S. (2003).

Measuring behavior change in young children receiving intensive school-based mental health services. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 629–639. 5 21 Ingersoll, R. M. (2001).

Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. 22 Ingersoll, R. M. (2001).

Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. 23 Marvel, J., Lyter, D., Peltola, P., Strizek, G. A., Morton, B. A., & Rowland, R. (2007).

Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2004-05 Teacher Follow-up Survey (National Center for Education Statistics Report #2007-307). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 24 National Association of School Psychologists. (2010).

Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services. Bethesda, MD: Author. 25 Baker, J. A. (2008).

Assessing school risk and protective factors. In B. Doll & J. A. Cummings (Eds.), Transforming school mental health services: Population-based approaches to promoting the competency and wellness of children (pp. 43–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press and the National Association of School Psychologists. 26 Durlak, J. A., & Dupre, E. P. (2008).

Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. 27 Casella, R. (2003).

Zero tolerance policy in school: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105, 872–892. 28 Cassella, R. (2003).

Punishing dangerousness through preventive detention: Illustrating the institutional link between school and prison. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 55–70. 29 American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008).

Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862. 30Skiba, R. J. (2004).

Zero tolerance: The assumptions and the facts [Education Policy Brief]. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, Indiana University. 31 American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862. 32 Ibid. 33 Gregory, A., & Cornell, D. (2009).

Tolerating adolescent needs: Moving beyond zero tolerance policies in high school. Theory into Practice, 48, 106–113. 34 Hirschfield, P. J. (2008).

Preparing for prison?: The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12, 79–101. 35 Turner, R. K. & Goodner, M. (2010).

Passing the paddle: Nondisclosure of children’s criminal cases. Austin, TX: State Bar of Texas. 36 American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008).

Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862 37 Fowler, D. (2011).

School discipline feeds the “pipeline to prison.” Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 14–19. 38 Fowler, D. (2010).

Texas’ school to prison pipeline: Ticketing, arrest, and use of force in schools. Austin, TX: Texas Appleseed. 39 Council of State Governments Justice Center and Texas A&M University Public Policy Research Institute. (2011).

Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center. 40 Maag, J. W. (2012).

School-wide discipline and the intransigency of exclusion. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2094–2100. 41 Mendez, L. M. R. (2003).

Predictors of suspension and negative school outcomes: A longitudinal investigation. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 17–33. 42 Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007).

Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education, 42, 536–579. 43 Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., Kewal-Ramani, A., Kemp, J., Bianco, K., & Dinkes, R. (2009).

The condition of education 2009 (NCES 2009-081).

Washington, DC:   National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 44 Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006).

Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67–88. 45 Aud, S., Kewal-Ramani, A., & Frohlich, L. (2011). America’s youth: Transitions to adulthood (NCES 2012-026).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 46 Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011).

Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline.  School Psychology Review, 40, 85–107.

© 2013, National Association of School Psychologists, 4340 East West Highway  Suite 402, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 657-0270



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s