President's Message - Fall 2008

THE CONDITIONS OF RESEARCH-BASED PRACTICE

Rick Brigam
George Mason University

One of the recurring themes in the literature and conference proceedings of our profession is the gap between research and practice. Put simply, we have dramatically more ability to improve the outcomes for our students than is often used. One assumption is that practitioners are unaware of the practices that have been validated as highly effective in the research base. This is surely the case for some, but not all failures of professionals in special education to perform at a level commensurate with the responsibility that we accepted when we entered the profession. Additional training aligned with the best of our evidence seems to be the most logical approach to this problem, the problem of ignorance.

Another possible reason for persisting ineffective practice is that human belief systems often operate in a manner that screens out information that is incompatible with previously held convictions. The literature in science education contains a particularly large set of studies illustrating the difficulty of correcting previously held misconceptions. In special education, we need look no further than the continuing belief in the long discredited model of learning styles based on modality preferences for an example of a misconception that is highly resistant to change. This problem, cognitive rigidity, appears to be far more difficult to overcome. Belief is easier than skepticism and certainty is more comfortable than doubt. It seems that creating a culture that regularly corrects misconceptions on the part of its practitioners rather than tolerates them would go a long way toward that end. I am honestly uncertain how we might go about that given that many of the leaders of our schools are purveyors of misconception. For example, one of my colleagues who recently offered to conduct staff development in assessment in a local high school (without charge) was rejected by the principal who stated that while she didn't know what this curriculum-based measurement stuff was she could clearly see that it would only work for visual learners (because of the graphing component). The walls of such ignorance are thick, high, and well-defended.
 
Professional ignorance and cognitive rigidity are alarming despite their long history and probable survival in the future. They are discussed often in professional discourse. A less heard discussion is in regard to why some classroom personnel know what to do, avoid the serious misconceptions that hinder our professional credibility and, nevertheless, fail to demonstrate their knowledge and skills as clearly as one might expect. For a great many under-performing classroom personnel, I suspect that the conditions that promote true effectiveness are not only absent, but have been replaced by conditions that actually thwart effective practice. I will illustrate the point by describing the working conditions for special educators in two schools I have observed closely over the past few years.

The two schools share some characteristics. Both schools are over-crowded. Although they were only recently opened, the population growth in their area far outpaced the ability of the district to provide space and resources. Both schools are located in suburban neighborhoods that are economically stable and relatively free of serious social problems. Both schools provide a substantial amount of staff development activity before their students arrive for the first day of classes. Both schools are staffed by highly skilled special education teachers who are truly interested in promoting the well being of their students. It is very common to run into teachers from each school at professional development activities and on the university campus as they complete additional coursework. Teachers at one of the schools are beginning to fade from the professional development scene, and I suspect that the reason is partly because of the working conditions they face each day. While the schools are similar in size, economic conditions, and the populations that they serve, they are very different in the way that school administrators lead their teachers. One school is led in a way that appears to be yielding increasingly unsatisfactory outcomes while the other is led in a way that is yielding increasingly desirable outcomes.

Teachers in the problematic school have little time to prepare for their classes. Although they arrive for two weeks of contract days before classes begin, they are often told of their actual teaching assignments only hours before the students arrive for the first day of class. When one teacher complained that his teaching assignment was only revealed to him late on the Friday before classes started, the administrator in charge responded that he had the whole weekend to prepare. While this is true, it is also indicative of a dismissive and disrespectful attitude toward the teaching staff and also for teaching itself.

The structure of the special education programs in this school is also up for grabs. Teachers are regularly told that they may not discuss programming options unavailable in their school building with parents or other IEP team members. Additionally, upon their return to work, they were informed that the administrative team had changed their philosophy and that many intensive special education classes had been eliminated in favor of the more inclusive model of team teaching. Teachers were, therefore, required to contact the parents of many of their students to rewrite the IEPs so that they reflected the blanket decision made by the school administrators--a task made more difficult because their caseload assignments had not been made until well after their teaching assignments. My own experience as a school administrator makes me wonder how arbitrary and erratic leadership such as this can do anything but interfere with effective, research-based practices.

The bright note of the beginning of the school year was the staff meeting in which several successful teaching collaborations were acknowledged. When the teaching assignments were finally transmitted to the teachers, none of the teams acknowledged in the earlier meeting remained in tact. (The administrator's explanation was "The computer made a different schedule.") Even though the teachers in this school are well trained in highly desirable practices for teaching, assessment, and working with parents and other teachers, little evidence of such activities can be found in the school. Rather, the teachers find themselves scrambling to adapt to an arbitrary and chaotic environment where respect for their professional abilities is absent.

Leaving the problematic school and traveling to the other school I describe is a change as dramatic as taking a trans-oceanic flight and finding oneself in a completely different culture. The teachers in this school arrived at the beginning of the school year with plans for their classes and ideas that they had developed over the summer. With few exceptions, the staff had a very good idea of what they would be teaching and with whom at the end of the previous school year. When changes had to be made, the teachers were told why the changes were made, what alternatives had been considered, and even given an opportunity to make their own suggestions. Teachers were encouraged to continue effective practices that had been noted in the previous school year and the teachers and administrators held a forthright discussion of the problems that faced the school with consideration given to what each group could do to improve the outcomes for the school. Special education teachers in this school are quick to show parents and external evaluators graphs from their curriculum-based measurement activities, explain the strategies that they teach their students, and provide examples of mnemonic and organizational materials that they created for their students. The administrators in this school are well aware of their teachers' efforts and are also quite willing to describe what their teachers are doing and why they are doing it.

Given the similarity in the demographic, physical, and economic conditions of these two schools, it is difficult to conclude that the difference in climate is the result of much other than leadership. My purpose is not actually to blame the people responsible for their dilemma but to point out how damaging the situation I describe is to professional practice, staff morale, and also to student outcomes. The situations I describe are the result of administrative decisions. Rather than attacking the administrators who engage in such practices, I suggest celebrating those who manage to avoid them. The research base supports reinforcement more than punishment.

Good instruction takes planning. Teachers in schools where they are told what they are to be teaching and then are actually able to teach that material are probably more likely to plan and use research-based strategies than those who are kept in the dark until the last minute. I encourage DR members who work in classrooms to consider the efforts of their administrators who create conditions that support research-based practice and commend them openly. If you think positive remarks are scarce in the classroom, try sitting in the front office! DR members who are active researchers can also play a role in reinforcing leadership for research-based practice. When we observe good practice in schools, we should take a few minutes to write to the administrators and teachers involved with a copy sent to the district-level management. DR members who encourage and acknowledge school leaders who labor to create conditions that support research-based practices may help spread the word that we can do better when given the chance and the proper support.