This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend the National PBIS Conference in Chicago with a team of school leaders from North Vancouver. PBIS stands for Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports is an evidence-based framework used in schools to help improve student behaviour. It uses a data-driven, tiered approach to proactive interventions that help support a safe and inclusive school environment.
In additional to the typical keynote speakers, the conference had a wide variety of breakout sessions. These sessions were organized into themes, and the members of our group separated out to try and see as many of them as possible to be able to report back to each other on the varied learnings. The sessions that I attended were identified as part of the Equity Strand, and accordingly equity was a common theme between all the presentations.
Some of the titles of the sessions I attended included, ‘Using Data to Assess & Reduce Disproportionality in School Discipline’, ‘Culturally Responsive Practice to Support Each Learner’, and ‘Teaming to Increase Meaningful Participation of Students & Families’. A lot of what was discussed revolved around the disproportionate representation of black students in discipline and behavioural data, and the systems and structures in school that perpetuated inequities for non-white students. I found myself constantly having to calibrate what I was hearing for my context in Vancouver, and to consciously work to include a broader definition in my mental application of what I was hearing to encompass a greater number of misrepresented student demographics. While our proportion of black and Latin students is far fewer than the US, they are still represented in our schools along with students of Indigenous ancestry, Asian, South Asian, etc. It was interesting to hear the extent to which school leaders in the US were able to disaggregate student data on ethnicity in ways that we cannot. For example, they could see what proportion of black students had been sent to the office, versus white students. We don’t collect data on ethnicity like that in B.C. But not collecting the data certainly doesn’t mean there aren’t equity problems in our Canadian schools.
One of the focuses of PBIS I really appreciated was its heavy emphasis on data-driven decision making. One of the key reflective questions was, “are your interventions evidence based?” It helped me reflect on what evidence we are actually using. In North Vancouver schools we’re able to pull data from our YDI and MDI surveys, as well other more informal and anecdotal evidence that is no less valuable. All the different forms of student voice are also evidence that contribute to the rich tapestry of data. It’s important to consider the many different ways we can meaningfully engage student voice. One of the diagrams I appreciated most from the weekend was titled, ‘The Ladder of Participation’, which illustrated the degrees to which student voice is authentically incorporated. At one end of the spectrum, are students simply standing next to you for photo ops, or are they being leaders and initiators in decision making at your school? What opportunities are they given to do this?
Sometimes stepping out of your context to see how things are done in other places makes you appreciate the good things you’re already doing. There was some really nice alignment between the systems, structures and language used in PBIS, and things we do in North Van. The multi-tiered systems of support model where interventions are separated into 3 levels was akin to the ‘universal’, ‘targeted’ and ‘intensive’ models of support in North Van. One easy example of this is our Choices Program, that supports students’ social-emotional wellness. At Sutherland it was nice to recognize that our school-wide intervention of no cell phones during class time was a perfect example of a PBIS intervention in a high school setting. PBIS is often seen more commonly as an elementary framework, but there are certainly great examples, such as Choices and cell phone interventions, that exemplify elements of it being used successfully in secondary settings as well.
One of the more controversial aspects of PBIS was its use, in some instances, of rewards. These could be something as simple as a sticker, or an extended or second recess break for students who accrue enough points through whatever tracking system the school or classes use – potentially like this one. Some critics would say that motivation to change behaviour should be intrinsic, and not motivated by external or material forces. Defenders will tell you that rewards, like all elements of PBIS, are supported by data and that using them statistically helps to improve student behaviour. And that there’s room, particularly with younger students, to have what starts as an external motivation in early grades, to migrate to more intrinsic as they grow. I would count myself more in the skeptic’s camp when it comes to rewards, especially in terms of what values we’re trying to instill in students. Do we want them doing the right thing because there’s a prize, or because it aligns with the morals we aspire for students to develop?
As school leaders we need to keep in mind that all behaviour is communication. Many students may not be able to articulate the challenges they are facing, and their way of asking for assistance may be to act in ways that demand our attention. Maintaining a culture of expectations for students that aligns with an established co-created code of conduct is important, but traditional discipline may not always the best response. We need to listen to the needs of our students and families to know how best to support and encourage positive behaviour.
Lastly, the conference was a great opportunity, of course, to energetically connect with colleagues on a fun experience. We worked hard, collectively reflected, and took time to enjoy the good company of friends by doing group activities like a Bulls basketball game, team dinners and a Chicago River cruise. It was an exceptionally valuable experience I was grateful to be a part of!
Asher is easily the piece of my life right now that I have the most gratitude for. And for him to arrive in the middle of a pandemic has brought such light to my family and those close to us. He is the ongoing conversation starter for me with my staff, and because of that I get to start every conversation with a smile and an update on him. It’s also hard to send an upset email reply or Teams message to me when my profile pic is me with a cute baby. Imagine how every difficult conversation in your building would go if there was also a baby in the room – it’s very disarming! So, I have a lot to be thankful for, and am grateful to be able to share my joy with staff.
Dr. Delahooke, in her empathic approach, suggested that challenging student behaviours are an adaption to autonomic nervous system cues, and that there is a difference between wilful misbehaviour and a subconscious adaptation. The behaviours are only the metaphorical tip of the iceberg, and that it’s our responsibility in caring for our children to delve beyond the surface, seek to understand, and support students as best we can. I also appreciated Dr. Delahooke’s notion that self-regulation needs to begin first with co-regulation; that the external interaction between students in your classroom/building needs to be upskilled and regulated before attention can be turned inwards for students.
Clay Cook’s breakout session about Promoting Teacher’s Stress Reduction, Emotional Wellbeing, and Positive Social Interactions, really hammered home the theme that unwell adults have difficulty promoting well children. He also discussed how psychological safety for staff creates a collaborative and innovative learning culture, and that ‘climate’ is how people feel, while ‘culture’ is how people behave. Finally, Clay noted that high-performing environments and frequent ‘ratcheting-up’ of expectations for students are a potent risk factor for mental health disorders, just as other factors like poverty are. This idea gave me pause for reflection on how it is we can continue to maintain high expectations and the pursuit of excellence in our students, while simultaneously supporting their mental health and wellbeing.
Through our second activity we started to explore what meaningful feedback looks like. We were partnered up to complete a task which involved tossing tennis balls from a seated position, and through multiple iterations discovered the relative value of encouragement versus detailed information as feedback. This is where we also began to examine coaching as a vehicle for feedback, mentorship and, ultimately, leadership.
In the afternoon this understanding was further refined as we hit the tennis court to start using a coaching model for providing feedback. Chis kicked off the session with an intro to tennis pro turned philosopher Tim Gallwey. Gallwey is the author of The Inner Game of Tennis, a psychological examination of sport performance phenomenon. In it, he describes two selves: Self 1, which is analytical, ego-driven and gets in the way of Self 2, which is more unconscious, intuitive and physical. When an athlete is ‘in the zone’, they are fully realizing their Self 2 potential. The secret to the Inner Game is really to find how to get Self 1 out of the way of Self 2.
The ideas we had established earlier about quality feedback needing to be more informative than encouraging were also reinforced through this activity. We each had an opportunity to try all 3 roles, and from this activity I learned that as a coach/mentor it’s important to be highly attentive, to allow the student to define their own goals, and to remember that learning is a reflective process that works best when people feel safe.
And so for homework, we were challenged to carve out an authentic and meaningful pause; to take a break from the day, and to make a conscious effort to relax at some point between when we ended our Thursday and began our Friday. Unfortunately for the Handsworth participants this also happened to be our Parent-Teacher Interview evening. But needless to say, we did our best!
Our culminating activity for the day was an outdoor competitive group challenge. We were divided into 4 teams, each with a coach to help guide using the Question Funnel, and supercoach to employ The Feedback Model with the coach. Our team challenge was a timed obstacle course, and brought together many of the concepts we had already learned, including having the coachees (the team) determine their own goals. We were encouraged to practice our questioning techniques, rather than telling people what to do, and were reminded that leaders are able to check their emotions by grasping themselves, grasping their team, and finally grasping the task at hand.
This past month I read George Couros’ The Innovator’s Mindset. It was a book that came a good juncture in my professional growth as I move from teaching to administration. The book walked a nice line between both a teacher and administrator’s perspective on how to foster a culture of innovation in classrooms and a school as a whole. As with any book on education, I try to see if what I read simply reinforces my existing beliefs, or if it challenges me to see things differently. While much of what Couros writes was already in line with my beliefs, there was a lot of food for thought in the book and moments where I paused to reflect on my own experience and ways I could try to reframe some of the work we’re doing at Handsworth. I thought I might share a few notes and highlights from the book that really resonated with me.
One of the quotes Couros cited early in the book was from American educator and author, Stephen Covey, who talks about the speed of trust. As someone who subscribes completely to the idea that any organization is only as strong as its people and the relationships between them I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that things just get done, and get done faster, where there is an established culture of trust. This culture is developed, as Couros says, “by the expectations, interactions, and, ultimately, the relationships of the entire learning community.” But, even more importantly, relationships are built first on a one-to-one basis. I like Couros’ suggestion that as an administrator it is important to work with smaller staff groups of 2 to 4 people to create an intimacy that is lacking with larger assembly style groups. I have been fortunate to work with some great district administrators in North Vancouver who have also worked hard to create relationships with other staff in those types of smaller working groups. Networking is so important, because, as is mentioned in the book, “alone we are smart, together we are brilliant.” Strong relationships create an environment for innovation.
Education Rumination 
You must be logged in to post a comment.