Stop the Violence

Last Sunday, the Washington Post ran a story about the recent surge in school violence at Hart Middle School, where, in the past several weeks, three teachers were assaulted, a 14-year-old was charged with carrying a shotgun and students discharged fire extinguishers throughout the building.  Hart, a school currently placed on “restructuring” status under NCLB due to its repeated failure to make adequate academic progress, has made little headway in its attempt to raise achievement despite the installment of a young new principal and the promise of additional interventions to support students and families.

Little headway, that is, until a few day ago, when DC schools’ Chancellor Michelle Rhee fired Hart principal Kisha Webster, supplanting her with a central office administrator. In recent coverage of this sure-to-be controversial firing, the Post gives Ms. Webster’s take on the firing.  Claiming to have been “set up,” Ms. Webster blamed her downfall on a lack of resources, second-tier teachers, and an unsupportive central office. She then went on to assert that publicity led to her demise. She is quoted here as saying: "If I had been able to keep things quiet, I'd still be [at Hart].”

Never underestimate the power of a headline. It seems, at least in the case of Hart, DCPS is more responsive to external coverage than internal warning signs and threats of disaster. From what I can gather, the problems plaguing Hart had taken root long before Webster took over in September. And DCPS knew of Hart’s struggles and should have done a better job of supporting the school and its staff from the beginning, rather than waiting for a Post exposé to prompt swift action. Regardless of central office’s failure to intervene, as school leader, Webster had a responsibility to create a safe atmosphere and climate of learning. And it is apparent that in her short tenure, neither goal was accomplished.

Hopefully, the lesson learned from Hart is that DCPS can no longer afford to reactively put out fires across the district. A change in principal may have the desired effect of ending the recent surge in violence, but unless it is coupled with better policies and practices, we’re unlikely to see systemic improvement. A well-developed and thoughtful set of policies should be crafted and put into place in each school, accompanied by a cadre of prevention programs.

Unlike a decade ago, we now have considerable evidence for successful, innovative school-based prevention programs that enhance the ability of schools to function properly, and, in turn, reduce incidences of violence and discipline considerably. See here and here for some good work being done on this front. Let’s not wait for the next Post headline to begin exploring these programs and implementing them in our schools. Instead, let’s think about some ways in which we can use the evidence base to inform both and practitioners and policy makers. 

The research around school-based prevention programs suggests that more important than specific programs or curricula are the principles upon which effective strategies are based and the fidelity with which they are implemented.  Schools can decrease problem behavior by organizing and managing themselves effectively, creating environments that support prosocial behavior, instituting clear rules and expectations, and creating structures and supports that help administrators, teachers, and students work together to meet those expectations. Yet these supports are often symbolic (e.g. behavioral contracts) or entirely lacking in the most troubled districts. It is encouraging to know that in some districts (like D.C., according to a draft five-year action plan), strategies are underway to bolster Student Support Teams (SSTs) to better coordinate academic and behavioral interventions for at-risk students. I’d like to see SSTs expanded to become a more universal approach, especially in urban districts where the vast majority of kids can be categorized as at-risk.

From a policy standpoint, more dollars should be appropriated for school-based prevention – despite the relative cost-effectiveness and proven success of school-based programs, they only receive an estimated $6-$8 per pupil per year in federal expenditures, not enough to be widely and properly implemented. Federal dollars should be targeted towards high-need districts in low-income, urban communities that exhibit a disproportionately high rate of violent and disruptive behavior and yet have the least capacity for solving such problems. And because research suggests that the quality of implementation is at least as important as the type of program, monitoring and technical assistance to districts and schools should be ramped up. 

- Posted by guestblogger Sara Yonker