Home Uncategorized IEP week 4 assignment

Uncategorized

IEP week 4 assignment

Develop an action plan for how you will work in a school setting. Review all of the content we have discussed, including lectures provided, and write a plan for how you will enter a new school (high school or below), how you will maintain your relationships with the school and finally how would you interact with the IEP process if asked. In this assignment you are demonstrating all of the material that has been discussed this month. This is a culminating assignment where you demonstrate your learnings for the month. Keep in mind the four course learning outcomes as you write your plan.

You must include a title page, Abstract, completed Action Plan (thorough and detailed with citations that support your plan), and Reference page. Remember, you need to include elements from each week in your plan. Paper must be on APA style and must use the template for APA below attached.

Paper must be 5-6 pages long

Course Learning Outcomes

Determine the role culture plays in the school environment.
Analyze how to develop a collaborative working relationship with classroom teachers.
Construct a plan for working with the stakeholders in implementing an Individualized Educational Plans (IEP)

In your action plan be sure to connect the learning material that has be covered through the month.

Below is attched a template for the Action Plan that you must use.

the paper must include at least 4 sources from the 4 week resources and must be cited

Sources to reference:

Week 1 attached nasbe_howschoolswork (1)
week 2 attached are 2 options ( el199809_peterson or What_is_School_Culture_and_Climate.mp4 )

week 3 attached ( video – Education_-_Collaboration (1)p4 )

Week 4 – there are 2 options attached (Week 4 source pdf or a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGYO9XWhI2Y )

September 1998

September 1998 | Volume 56 | Number 1

Realizing a Positive School Climate Pages 28-30

How Leaders Influence the

Culture of Schools

School leaders—principals, teachers, and parents—are the key

to eliminating toxic culture and building positive culture. Four

exemplary schools provide a glimpse of what this kind of

leadership provides.

Kent D. Peterson and Terrence E. Deal

Parents, teachers, principals, and students often sense something special and about

the schools they attend. For decades, the terms climate and ethos have been used to capture

this pervasive, yet elusive, element we call “culture.”

Although hard to define and difficult to put a finger on, culture is extremely powerful. This

ephemeral, taken-for-granted aspect of schools, too often over-looked or ignored, is actually

one of the most significant features of any educational enterprise. Culture influences everything

that goes on in schools: how staff dress, what they talk about, their willingness to change, the

practice of instruction, and the emphasis given student and faculty learning (Deal & Peterson,

1994; Firestone & Wilson, 1985; Newmann & Associates, 1996).

What is school culture, and who shapes it? Culture is the underground stream of norms,

values, beliefs, traditions, and rituals that has built up over time as people work together, solve

problems, and confront challenges. This set of informal expectations and values shapes how

people think, feel, and act in schools. This highly enduring web of influence binds the school

together and makes it special. It is up to school leaders—principals, teachers, and often parents

—to help identify, shape, and maintain strong, positive, student-focused cultures. Without

these supportive cultures, reforms will wither, and student learning will slip.

We have learned about the importance of school culture in a variety of ways. Over the past

dozen years, we have conducted studies of school leadership, restructuring, and culture

building and we have consulted with educators in hundreds of schools in the United States and

abroad. Although interviewing staff highlights the importance of culture, it has often been

through site visits that we have seen the power of positive cultures in action.

The Blight of Toxic Cultures
Unfortunately, some schools have, over time, become unproductive and toxic. These are

schools where staffs are extremely fragmented, where the purpose of serving students has

been lost to the goal of serving the adults, where negative values and hopelessness reign.

For example, in one high school, disgruntled staff came to faculty meetings ready to attack

new ideas, criticize those teachers concerned about student achievement, and make fun of any

staff who volunteered to go to conferences or workshops. Teachers who support change talked

about the meetings as battlegrounds, the Sarajevos of education, where snipers and attacks

were the norm. Negative staff had effectively sabotaged any attempts at collegial improvement.

Even good schools often harbor toxic subcultures, oppositional groups of staff or parents who

want to spread a sense of frustration, anomie, and hopelessness. Toxic schools are places

where negativity dominates conversations, interactions, and planning; where the only stories

recounted are of failure, the only heroes are anti-heroes.

No one wants to live and work in these kinds of schools. But it takes leadership, time, and

focus to rebuild these festering institutions. Happily, most schools are not this far gone, though

many have cultural patterns that do not serve staff or students.

The Opportunities of Positive Cultures
In contrast to the poisonous places described above, many schools have strong, positive

cultures. These are schools

● where staff have a shared sense of purpose, where they pour their hearts into teaching;

● where the underlying norms are of collegiality, improvement, and hard work;

● where student rituals and traditions celebrate student accomplishment, teacher

innovation, and parental commitment;

● where the informal network of storytellers, heroes, and heroines provides a social web of

information, support, and history;

● where success, joy, and humor abound.

Strong positive cultures are places with a shared sense of what is important, a shared ethos of

caring and concern, and a shared commitment to helping students learn. Some examples

might illuminate the possibilities.

Ganado Primary School in Ganado, Arizona, was once identified as one of the worst schools in

the state. Now the culture is one that supports learning for its Navajo students, professional

innovation for its staff, and meaningful parent involvement for its community. The principal,

Sigmund Boloz, and his staff regularly meet for “Curriculum Conversations” about new

instructional techniques, and they discuss new books during “Teachers as Readers” meetings.

The school acclaims student accomplishment of all types during the “Celebrating Quality

Learning Awards.” The building, whose architecture symbolizes the four directions of Navajo

beliefs, has student work and the rugs of skilled Ganado weavers displayed everywhere.

Joyce Elementary School in Detroit, Michigan, has developed a strong, student-focused culture.

The school is located in an economically depressed area, but its culture is rich with hope and

support. Over the past 20 years, Principal Leslie Brown Jr. has worked with his staff and

parents to build a place that values its students, encourages professional improvement, and

celebrates success. Regular classes for parents support their interest in learning. Staff hold

high expectations for themselves and students. Joy and caring fill the hallways. A special

honors ceremony with speeches, medallions for the students, and time to reflect on personal

achievement attracts hundreds of community members each year.

Powerful informal professional norms characterize Central Park East Secondary School in New

York City. Under the leadership of Deborah Meier, the staff and students developed a school

culture with a clear vision about schooling for secondary students, linked with the coalition for

Essential Schools for ideas and support (Meier, 1995). Staff exhibit a passionate

professionalism and enjoy extensive opportunities for collegial dialogue, problem solving, and

community building. The culture encourages student involvement in community service and

teacher commitment to continual instructional development and design. The final student

performance assessment remains a powerful tradition that reinforces a dedication to excellence

and allegiance to learning.

At Hollibrook Elementary in Spring Branch, Texas, ceremonies and traditions reinforce student

learning. Under the leadership of Suzanne Still and staff, and supported through ties to the

Accelerated Schools Model, the school developed numerous traditions to create and foster

increased student success (Hopfenberg, 1995). For example, faculty meetings became a

hotbed of professional dialogue and discussion of practice and published research. “Fabulous

Friday” was created to provide students with a wide assortment of courses and activities. A

“Parent University” furnishes courses and materials while building trust between the school and

the largely Hispanic community. Norms of collegiality, improvement, and connection reinforce

and symbolize what the school is about.

In many other schools, local heroes and heroines, exemplars of core values, provide models of

what everyone should be striving for. These deeply committed staff come in early, are always

willing to meet with students, and are constantly upgrading their skills.

How do these strong cultures come about? School leaders—including principals, teachers, and

often parents and community members—shape and maintain positive values and shared

purpose.

The Role of School Leaders
School leaders from every level are key to shaping school culture. Principals communicate core

values in their everyday work. Teachers reinforce values in their actions and words. Parents

bolster spirit when they visit school, participate in governance, and celebrate success. In the

strongest schools, leadership comes from many sources.

School leaders do several important things when sculpting culture. First, they read the culture—

its history and current condition. Leaders should know the deeper meanings embedded in the

school before trying to reshape it. Second, leaders uncover and articulate core values, looking

for those that buttress what is best for students and that support student-centered

professionalism. It is important to identify which aspects of the culture are destructive and

which are constructive. Finally, leaders work to fashion a positive context, reinforcing cultural

elements that are positive and modifying those that are negative and dysfunctional. Positive

school cultures are never monolithic or overly conforming, but core values and shared purpose

should be pervasive and deep.

What are some of the specific ways school leaders shape culture?

● They communicate core values in what they say and do.

● They honor and recognize those who have worked to serve the students and the purpose

of the school.

● They observe rituals and traditions to support the school’s heart and soul.

● They recognize heroes and heroines and the work these exemplars accomplish.

● The eloquently speak of the deeper mission of the school.

● They celebrate the accomplishments of the staff, the students, and the community.

● They preserve the focus on students by recounting stories of success and achievement.

Examples abound in the schools we have already described. At Ganado Primary, Boloz and his

staff constantly share stories of the many changes they have made in the school. At Joyce

Elementary, Brown and his faculty celebrate the successes of their students and parents in

ritual “clap outs” and larger ceremonies. At Central Park East, school leaders meet regularly

with students to communicate caring and support for hard work. Hollibrook Elementary holds

regular discussion groups in parents’ homes to cement ties and built trust. In small and large

ways, school leaders refashion the negative sides of school culture and reinforce the positive

aspects.

The role of school leaders in the crafting of cultures is pervasive (Deal & Peterson, 1994). Their

words, their nonverbal messages, their actions, and their accomplishments all shape culture.

They are models, potters, poets, actors, and healers. They are historians and anthropologists.

They are visionaries and dreamers. Without the attention of leaders, school cultures can

become toxic and unproductive. By paying fervent attention to the symbolic side of their

schools, leaders can help develop the foundation for change and success.

References

Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K.D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and

artistry in schools. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Firestone, W.A. & Wilson, B.L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to

improve instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 7-30.

Hopfenberg, W.S. (1995). The accelerated school resource guide. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small

school in Harlem. Boston: Beacon.

Newmann, F., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools

for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Author’s Note: This article is adapted from Shaping School Culture: The School Leader’s Role, by Terrence E. Deal

and Kent D. Peterson, forthcoming from Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

Kent D. Peterson is Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Educational Administration,

1025 W. Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706 (e-mail: kpeterson@mail.soemadison.wisc.edu). Terrence E. Deal is

Professor at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Department of Educational Leadership, Nashville, TN 37203.

mailto:kpeterson@mail.soemadison.wisc.edu

http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.60f9872264ad1119f7378b10d3108a0c/

http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.2a4fb56d79bd30a98d7ea23161a001ca/template.article?articleMgmtId=307aebb413520010VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD

http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.f99ce1aeb9ea20a98d7ea23161a001ca/template.article?articleMgmtId=fbd2016620520010VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD

http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.f99ce1aeb9ea20a98d7ea23161a001ca/template.article?articleMgmtId=6d1b5cb15ebfa010VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD

Local Disk

How Leaders Influence the Culture of Schools // Kent D. Peterson and Terrence E. Deal

how schools work

A Primer For Those Who Want To
Serve Children and Youth In Schools

& how to work with schools

The original edition of this document, published by NASBE

in 1990, was written by Janice Earle, William Kane, and

Candace Sullivan.

The National Association of State Boards of Education

gratefully acknowledges the following members of the

Advisory Board for this updated document:

Jim Bogden, MPH

Author of the 2003 edition of How Schools Work and
How to Work

with Schools

Rachelle Chiang, MPH

National Association of Chronic Disease Directors

Lesley Graham, MS

Save the Children

Nora Howley, MA

NEA Health Information Network

Theresa Lewallen, MA

ASCD

Kenneth Mason, MA

Georgia State Board of Education

Donna Mazyck, MS, RN

National Association of School Nurses

Julia Pekarsky Schneider, MPH

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials

authors Dana Carr and Bill Modzeleski
project supervisor Whitney Meagher
Copyright © 2014 by the National Association of State Boards of
Education, 2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 3

, Arlington, Virginia 22202. All
rights reserved. This publication can be downloaded at www.nasbe.org.

Development of How Schools Work and How to Work with Schools was
suppor ted through funding from

the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC.

acknowledgements /

how schools work
& how to work with schools

how schools work

A Primer For Those Who Want To
Serve Children and Youth In Schools

& how to work with schools

chapter 1 /

introduction
02 Purpose of the Guide
02 Why Schools?
05 Addressing Academics and Non-academic

Barriers to Learning
09 Connecting Health and Education to

Meet the Full Range of Children’s Needs

chapter 2 /

how schools work
12 The Federal Role in Education
18 National Organizations’ Role

in Education
18 The State’s Role in Education
21 The Local Role in Education
24 The Individual School

pgs 1-10 pgs 11-2

ta
bl

e
of

c
on

te
nt

s
/

iii

appendices /

Appendix A: Glossary of Common

Education Terms

50 Appendix B: School Personnel
Who Suppor t Students’ Health and
Development

Appendix C: Federal Government
Programs That Suppor t School Health
and Safety

Appendix D: Non-Governmental
Organizations That Suppor t School
Health and Safety

Endnotes

chapter 4 /

conclusion

chapter 2 /
how schools work
12 The Federal Role in Education
18 National Organizations’ Role
in Education
18 The State’s Role in Education
21 The Local Role in Education
24 The Individual School

chapter 3 /

how to work with schools
28 Guiding Principles and Concepts for

Working with Schools
30 Practical Steps for Working with Schools

pgs 25-31 pgs 32-33

chapter 1 /

introduction
02 Purpose of the Guide
02 Why Schools?
05 Addressing Academics and

Non-academic Barriers to Learning
09 Connecting Health and Education

to Meet the Full Range of
Children’s Needs

/purpose of the guide
Educators often say, “to know one school is to know one school.” Indeed, the education system is widely

variable and causes confusion at many levels. This guide is intended to assist anyone who would like to

work more closely with various facets of the education system—with policymakers, school administrators,

teachers, and other school staff—to improve the health, safety, and well-being of children and youth in

schools. It aims to help people from different backgrounds, occupations, and training to better navigate the

complex web of the education system.

Many sectors are interested in working with and in schools on a vast array of issues and projects. However,

the education system has fundamentally different goals and desired outcomes than most of its potential

par tners, as well as its own language, practices, and funding streams. While these par tnership oppor tunities

might benefit schools, students, staff, and ultimately communities, they cannot be fully realized if par tners or

collaborators do not understand the context in which education operates.

/why schools?
Schools are a key community institution, with 99 percent of all children and youth from ages 5-18 years

old spending many hours of their days through much of the year in school.1 Elementary and secondary

schools—from kindergar ten through 12th grade—serve children and youth during critical developmental

years, and schools have significant influence on the lives of young people, providing a setting in which social

relationships develop, social norms are created and reinforced, and children and youth have the oppor tunity

to apply academic learning to their lives.

Schools present an optimal and widely studied setting for programs that can have lifelong positive physical

and mental health benefits for students and communities. Much of this research is reflected in seminal works

that guide and set priorities for health policy and practice across the nation, such as Healthy People 2020
and the Community Guide to Preventive Services.2 In par ticular, several key Healthy People 2020 goals
highlight the connectedness of education and health status, as well as the impor tance of schools as sites for

Excellent orExcellent orExcellent or
VeVeVeryryry Good Good Good

GoodGoodGood FaFaFair or Pir or Pir or Poorooroor

critical interventions.3 These works highlight this connection because many leading causes of death, such as

chronic diseases or injuries, are related to behaviors that are adopted during youth and carry forward into

adulthood. At the same time, data show that educational attainment and health status during adulthood are

connected:4 adults who repor t “excellent or very good” health status are more likely to have attained higher

levels of academic outcomes than those who repor t lower levels of health status.

School-based programs hold much promise and describe actionable steps that adults can take to alter

school’s structure and what occurs every day in schools. These interventions have the potential to enhance

or impede children’s development, health, and well-being—and, in turn, their academic achievement. The

potential for positive results is impor tant, as research suggests safe, suppor tive, and health-promoting

schools enhance student achievement. For example:

 If students repor t a strong sense of engagement with and connectedness to school and/or adults at

school, they are more likely to do well academically and socially.6

 Students who repor t having a higher number of “developmental assets”—qualities that help young

people navigate the world, such as positive relationships, perceptions, values, oppor tunities, and

skills—tend to do better academically than those with a lower number of assets. Additionally, those

students who are able to increase the number of repor ted developmental assets over time are also

able to improve their academic standing.

Self-Reported Health Status Among Persons Aged ≥ 18 Years,
By Education Level / National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2011.

< HS Diploma

HS Diploma or GED

Some College

Bachelor’s Degree or Higher



 Students who attend schools that promote physical activity—through physical education, physical

activity breaks, or physical activity integrated into classroom learning—benefit from this activity, as

demonstrated by a range of academic and cognitive outcomes.

Research also shows that without thoughtful and meaningful steps to promote health, well-being, and

student safety, schools cannot realize their ultimate goal: to instruct children toward their optimal academic

development and achievement. Children are unlikely to achieve to their full potential if they are sick, in pain,

hungry, depressed, or scared, as they are likely to be too preoccupied to focus on learning. Consider the

following relationships between health and learning:

 A recent analysis shows that adolescents who engage in higher rates of risk behaviors associated

with the leading causes of death, disability, and social problems are significantly less likely to do

well academically.

 Data from the most recent Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System indicates that students with higher

grades are significantly less likely to engage in risky behaviors that can lead to illness or death during

adolescence or adulthood, such as carrying a weapon, cigarette use, alcohol use, sexual activity,

watching television three or more hours per day on an average school day, or being sedentary.

 Asthma and dental pain are two of the leading causes of school absenteeism. Children with dental

pain have been shown to miss more school and perform worse than their peers without dental pain.

One study estimates that in a single year, more than 51 million hours of school may be missed

because of a dental-related illness.11 Other studies suggest that students with asthma also miss more

school than their healthy peers.12 Data from 2008 show that almost 60 percent of students with

asthma miss at least one school day due to asthma per year, totaling 10.5 million school days.13

 A recent nationwide survey found that about 25 percent of students in grades 9-12 repor ted feeling

so sad or hopeless every day for at least two weeks in the year that they stopped some of their

normal activities.14 A similar survey under taken by the Austin, Texas, school district repor ted that

15 percent of the district’s high school students and 11 percent of middle school students said

they missed one or more school days during the last month because they “felt too sad or depressed

to attend.”

 Children who are hungry or poorly nourished do not do as well academically as their non-hungry
peers, but can improve their performance if they eat breakfast. Students who eat breakfast at school
have lower rates of tardiness or absenteeism than peers who do not eat a school breakfast.16

 Almost 6 percent of high school students in 2011 repor ted missing one or more days of school

because they felt unsafe there or on their way to or from school.

 During the 2009-2010 school year, bullying occurred on a daily or weekly basis in 23 percent of

public schools; 3 percent of schools repor ted that bullying causes widespread disorder in classrooms

on a daily or weekly basis.

/addressing academics and non-academic barriers to learning
Despite the deep connections between a student’s health, safety, and sense of well-being to academic

achievement, the education sector often does not have the resources—material, financial, knowledge, or

personnel—to sufficiently address the myriad challenges that students regularly face. Some school leaders

consider these issues to be outside the scope of their jobs, and many are concerned about diver ting

time and resources from academic learning.19 The overwhelming concern of all educators is to ensure

that every student demonstrates good performance to challenging academic standards. Most educators

understand intrinsically that this goal cannot be met if students are unable to come to school ready to learn.

Consequently, schools must help students by ensuring they have not only the academic suppor ts needed

to excel academically, but also the social, emotional, health, and mental health suppor ts needed to learn to

their fullest potential.

Currently, the education system focuses its effor ts and resources on ensuring students’ health, safety, and

wellbeing through these general means:

Curriculum and Instruction: A sequential, progressive course of study that conveys content and builds

skills to help students achieve their academic goals, as defined by a state and/or school district. The

academic goals are found in standards set by the state and local board of education (e.g., history standards,

mathematics standards, etc.). The standards set grade-level learning expectations, but they only provide the

framework for the curriculum—the standards are not in themselves a curriculum. The curriculum describes

the specific content and activities that are covered in a classroom over a school year and might integrate

with before- or after-school programs.

Policy: A set of rules or guidelines formulated or adopted by an education organization. Policies may be

formal or informal, and can direct how the education system operates. Formal policies can be implemented

and enforced at the federal, state, local, or individual school levels. Examples of formal policies might include

requirements about what food or beverages can be sold or served during school, immunizations that are

required for school attendance, graduation requirements to include physical education, or requirements that

all schools have an up-to-date emergency plan. These policies would require adoption or ratification by a

policymaking body or individual, such as Congress, a state or local school board, or a state legislature. Other

policies are informal and might only entail a school principal or superintendent deciding to implement new

guidelines or enact a rule (a school dress code, for example).

Practice: The manner in which policy is implemented. Over time, a practice might become an informal

policy in and of itself by creating expectations for cer tain actions within a school or district. The translation

of policy to practice can promote or undermine the effectiveness of any action. Examples of practice are

integration of physical activity into lessons,

testing an emergency plan on regular basis, or

providing classroom-based school breakfast

for all students.

It should be noted that “practice” has another

meaning commonly used in education, which

refers to “the carrying out or exercise of a

profession,” generally the practice of teaching

or being an administrator. “Best practice,” also

commonly used in education, means carrying

on one’s work (be it teaching, policymaking, or

program implementation) in the most effective

and productive manner possible—or, doing

what research has shown to work best.

Student Support Services and/or Coor-

dination: The presence of on-site services

or referral to off-site services designed to

suppor t student health, well-being, or devel-

opment. Examples of services include school-

based health services, mental health counsel-

ing, or referrals to community organizations

that can provide a range of services in those

areas, as well as serve as a focal point to co-

ordinate services being provided to the af-

fected student’s family.

Personnel: The people within the education

system whose responsibilities and roles include

supporting students’ academic achievement,

health, safety, or well-being. Health and

well-being personnel can encompass a

wide range of school-based professionals,

including nurses, qualified mental health

providers (e.g., social workers, counselors,

or psychologists), physical education and

health teachers, school resource officers, and

Examples of “Non-Academic Barriers
To Learning” That Educators
Routinely Address

Physical health, which
includes promoting physical
activity, addressing hunger
and nutrition, managing
asthma and other chronic
diseases and associated
medications, preventing
injuries, handling infec-
tious disease outbreaks,
and maintaining a healthy
physical building structure
for learning (such as light-
ing, ventilation, chemical
management).

Mental health, which
includes promoting an
inclusive school environ-
ment, early detection of
depression and/or suicide
warning signs, preventing
bullying, promoting posi-
tive youth development
and assets, and address-
ing substance abuse
prevention and recovery.

School and student safety,
which includes preven-
tion and mitigation of,
response to, and recovery
from events such as school
violence, including natural
disasters, human-caused
emergencies (gas leaks,
fires, equipment failures,
etc.), school shootings, or
other acute or prolonged
crises.



The Harlem Children’s Zone:
A Model for Connecting
Schools and Community
Services to Meet Children’s
Comprehensive Needs

In the early 1990s, a small pilot

project began that sought to build a

comprehensive network of support

services for residents in a one-block

area in Harlem, New York, who were

facing a gamut of challenges, including

crime, drugs, and poor housing and

schools. With determination, focus, and

a 10-year business plan, the Harlem

Children’s Zone (HCZ) project grew

from a single block to 24 blocks, to

60, and now to 97 blocks in Harlem.

The nexus of much of the HCZ Project

�
For more information on
The Harlem Children’s

Zone, visit www.hcz.org

are the schools, which combine high-quality teaching, high

expectations for students, and academic case management.

Over time, the schools have expanded to include students

from prekindergarten through high school, and the project

even supports these students into college. The HCZ’s “Baby

Academy” provides support and education for expectant

parents and those with infants and toddlers up to three years

old. The HCZ promotes physical health through its school-

based health center, asthma and healthy living initiatives,

access to play spaces, as well as through free classes for

middle-school students on karate, fitness, and dance. The HCZ

also promotes pro-social behavior with supportive programs

for foster children and children and families experiencing

domestic violence. HCZ staff and leadership recognize that

without these supplemental supports and programming—

reaching far beyond the traditional priorities of schools—

children cannot achieve their highest potential.

The HCZ is an ambitious example of a “place-based”

intervention, focused on a key geographic area, creating

comprehensive, coordinated, and complementary policies,

practices, services, and programs to promote academic

achievement as well as child, family, and community health

and well-being. The Obama administration has sought to

emulate this model through the Promise Neighborhoods

initiative, which supports building comprehensive approaches

to improving academics by building community-based

resources and assets.

curriculum coordinators. This category includes classroom teachers, who are the “front line” for students
and who, with support and training, can identify students in need of greater support or students showing
warning signs of health or safety issues. More broadly, this category also includes crossing guards, school
bus drivers, food service professionals, and playground monitors. All categories of personnel receive
varying levels of ongoing professional development throughout the school year and/or before entering
their jobs.

Supplemental or Supportive Programs: These effor ts are designed to provide additional exposure
to cer tain issues or oppor tunities for enrichment and development for students. Programs may or may not
be funded by the education system; an affiliated group such as the PTA or a community or other outside
group that offers funding, personnel, or technical exper tise might provide these oppor tunities. Activities
suppor ted by these groups can include intramural spor ts or activities, afterschool clubs or activities, or links
to community activities. These may or may not be well integrated into the curriculum and school structure or
be coordinated with school personnel or services.

Most work in education revolves around these major categories. Ideally, educators design their school systems
or schools to suppor t students, maximizing all the resources at their disposal from these areas. Their effor ts
to help students meet their highest potential should, in theory, assess, understand, and acknowledge the
vast and various needs of their students and create a school system that can address these needs.

In reality, schools face many priorities, which sometimes compete with one another for resources and
attention. Par tners must be willing to recognize these competing needs and frame their proposed effor ts
to complement, not compete with, schools’ existing demands and priorities. Ultimately, it is this type of

collaboration that best serves the interests and needs of students and schools.

/ connecting health and education to meet the full range
of children’s needs

Schools—and educators—do not exist in a vacuum; rather, they are an integral par t and reflection of the

communities they serve. By considering the role schools and educators play in a broader community context,

par tners might be more successful in meeting overlapping and mutually beneficial goals. Educators have

long recognized that they cannot meet their goals without the assistance, infrastructure, and cooperation of

their local community. The work of schools requires effective cross-sector collaboration and engagement:

in shor t, a whole-community approach to helping students optimally meet their intellectual, developmental,

social, and emotional needs.

This guide is intended to help those not familiar with the education environment navigate its complexities so

they can better assist schools in achieving their mission of ensuring that all children are successful in their

academic pursuits. The following sections describe:

 How the education system works at the federal, national, state, local, and school levels;

 Ways to meaningfully and positively engage with the education sector;

 Questions to consider before and during your work with the education sector;

 Answers to frequently asked questions about the education system; and

 Resources for additional information.

Appendices provide additional and more detailed information for reference and referral. Appendix A is

a glossary that defines many common education terms, including some used throughout this document,

indicated by italics. Appendix B describes the various adults who suppor t teaching and learning. Appendix C

is a list of federal programs and resources that suppor t schools and students in the school setting. Appendix

D is a list of additional resources.

chapter 2 /

how schools
work
12 The Federal Role in Education
18 National Organizations’ Role

in Education
18 The State’s Role in Education
21 The Local Role in Education
24 The Individual School

The U.S. K-12 education system is a complex and massive enterprise. For the 2012-2013 school year, the

education system is projected to spend more than $591 billion, with spending per individual pupil averaging

$11,810 nationally.20 State averages for per-pupil spending in FY2011 ranged from $6,326 (Utah) to

$20,793 (District of Columbia).

Nearly all school-aged children and youth in the country are enrolled in either elementary or secondary

schools. In the fall of 2013, more than 50 million students were projected to attend almost 99,000 public

schools in the United States, which includes an ever-expanding number of public char ter schools, with an

additional 5 million students attending about 33,400 private schools. Additionally, school systems across the

country employ over 3 million adults.22

Because schools are decentralized, there are very few generalities that exist for characterizing all school

districts or schools. Distinct state, territorial, and tribal school systems differ in substantive ways, but often

work in parallel, with different and overlapping laws and authorities.

In addition, public schools are in a state of near-constant reform and improvement. For decades, policymakers

and leaders have debated education issues, such as how to ensure equitable access to all students to high-

quality education, improve academic outcomes for all students, or compete with other countries on student

achievement and outcomes. But researchers are continually uncovering evidence to suppor t or refute many

aspects of educational policy and practice and new political leaders take office with their own ideas for

education reform, so educational trends begin, change, or end on a fairly regular basis. Despite these

ongoing changes and reforms, some key pieces of infrastructure remain fairly stable, as described below.

/the federal role in education
Although the U.S. Constitution does not specifically provide federal authority for education,24 the U.S. Con-

gress can pass laws that impact education and schools by providing specific authority for federal agen-

cies through the authorization process, as well as providing funding through the appropriations process.

Congress can also pass laws affecting students and their access to education. The U.S. Supreme Cour t has

State and local governments provide the

vast majority of public school funding,

about 87.5 percent in FY 2011. On aver-

age, the state and local shares are roughly

equal, though this can vary considerably

across states. The federal government pro-

vided about 12.5 percent of all school

revenues in FY 2011. This, too, varies

considerably across states: in FY 2011,

the federal government provided New

Jersey with 5.9 percent of its public school

revenues, while Mississippi received 22.4

percent of its school revenues from the fed-

eral government.

Generally speaking, the rate of federal

spending on education fluctuates with

the priorities of Congress and the White

House. In FY 2010, the federal govern-

ment invested an unprecedented amount

of funding into public schools, with over

97.4 billion from the American Reinvest-

ment and Recovery Act (ARRA) allocated

for education through the Race to the Top

and other programs.

States tend to raise funds for schools using

a yield from sales taxes, income taxes, and

corporate taxes, sources that vary with the

health of the economy and thus are vulner-

able to unpredictable budget shortfalls.

At the local level, most funds for K-12

public schools are raised through local

taxes on private property. Although a lo-

cal property tax is a fairly stable source

of funding, disparities in local wealth

often directly affect the funds available

to schools, reflected in the disparities in

per student spending within and between

school districts. Even if voters choose to

tax themselves at a relatively high rate,

low community property values can mean

inadequate resources for schools.

Many states have taken the initiative or

have been forced by legal challenges

to address these inequities in education

funding, which compromise the guarantee

found in state constitutions that all students

have equal access to an adequate pub-

lic education. States have adopted ballot

measures, such as California’s Proposition

98 and 111, to ensure funding equity,

or have raised funds from lotteries and

other mechanisms, or redistributed locally

raised taxes through legislative means to

help ensure equity in funding.

How are Public Schools Funded?

� The Public Education Governance Structure, Simplified

occasionally considered challenges to Congress’s laws and the Cour t’s subsequent decisions have changed

the course of education policy and practice.

Within the Executive Branch, Congress has granted the U.S. Depar tment of Education (ED) primary oversight

of the federal investment in education. Contrary to popular thought, ED’s ability to influence education policy

and practice is actually very limited by both the U.S. Constitution and its governing legislative authority, the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), originally passed in 1965. ESEA specifically prohibits ED

from directing local school districts’ actions related to specific curriculum, personnel, or budget.

Since ED’s establishment as a stand-alone agency in 1980, policymakers and the public have been embroiled

in a debate about the appropriate federal role in education. This debate continues, in a theoretical consid-

eration of state versus federal power, but also as a practical matter in terms of the laws that authorize ED

and its activities. Because ESEA includes a stipulation that it must be periodically reviewed, reconsidered,

and renewed, Congress must continually assess ESEA’s design and structure. Through this “reauthorization”

process, Congress can reimagine the law, its levers for advancing change, and its enforcement mechanisms.

State
Level

School
District
Level

School
Level

Governor Legislature
State Board
of Education

Chief State School Officer

State Education Agency Staff

School Board

Superintendent

Central Office Staff

Principal

School Staff

Local
Government

Parent Advisory/
School Improvement Council

� The Public Education Governance Structure, Simplified

Note: Each state’s governance structure is unique:
lines of authority among policymakers vary.

Likewise, Congress can choose to reauthorize or reapprove an identical law to the one already in effect. Since

1965, ESEA has been reauthorized many times, reflecting the prevailing philosophies on education policy

and practice.

ESEA was last reauthorized in 2001 with a version termed “The No Child Left Behind Act” (NCLB), signed

into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. Under this version of ESEA, the federal role in education was

greatly expanded by requiring states to establish rigorous standards and to periodically assess students on

those standards, with the goals of being able to more closely monitor student achievement and progress

towards closing the persistent achievement gap between racial/ethnic groups. This current authority of-

ficially expired in 2007—and as of April 2014, Congress has not been able to reauthorize the law, meaning

the underlying premise of NCLB and its authority structure for ED remain unchanged. ED has adapted this

authority to reflect current thinking and priorities about education through a waiver process for states. As

Congress continues to debate ESEA reauthorization, federal authority and ED’s functions will likely remain at

the forefront of the debate.

Department of eDucation

Regardless of what version of ESEA is enacted, ED’s guiding mission remains constant: “to promote student

achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring

equal access.” To foster educational excellence, ED oversees budget authority and funding for programs

currently authorized by NCLB through formula grants and competitive grants:

 Formula grants are awarded to states or school districts through states, based on specific

demographic factors. One of ED’s best-known (and, at over $13 billion, its largest) formula grant

programs is Title I, which provides funding to cover the extra costs associated with educating low-

income students. Such large formula grants provide the federal government with its greatest leverage

for affecting state and local education, since states and school districts accepting this money must

also adhere to cer tain requirements established in the law (for example, under NCLB, the requirement

that states yearly assess all students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school).

 Competitive grants are awarded to applicants after a thorough review, scoring, and ranking

process specific to a program authorized under current legislation. The number of grants awarded

may not be consistent year to year, as the number will depend on the amount of funding provided by

Congress each year, as well as the individual budget requests approved.

Grants, par ticularly competitive grants, give ED the flexibility to structure programs in order to reflect current

evidence and best practice, as well as allow an administration to promote its priorities.

ED is responsible for ensuring that all students have equal access to a high-quality education. It provides

funding and technical suppor t to states and school districts to ensure that all students, including those with

physical and developmental disabilities, receive a “Free Appropriate Public Education” (FAPE), as authorized

by the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004, or IDEA. This law provides funding for state and local educa-

tion agencies to ensure that all children and youth with disabilities, from bir th to age 21, have access to the

same level of educational services as other students in the school.

ED protects the rights of individual students by enforcing laws and pursuing claims of discrimination by any

entity receiving federal education funds, in violation of a student’s defined civil rights (as defined by law,

based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, and age). ED protects an individual student’s pri-

vacy and confidentiality of student records by enforcing the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

Under FERPA, students’ records cannot be shared outside a school, except in cer tain defined circumstances,

without a parent’s or of-age student’s consent. ED can pursue complaints, provide compliance assistance, or

even seek legal remedy for violations of either civil rights or privacy rights cases.

More information on special education, civil rights laws, and FERPA can be

found in Appendix A.

other feDeral agencies

In addition to ED, several other federal agencies oversee operational components of the education system.

For example, the U.S. Depar tment of Agriculture (USDA) operates the large and far-reaching school meal

programs, which include the National School Lunch (NSLP) and National School Breakfast Programs, as

well as programs that provide healthy after-school snacks and food assistance during summer breaks. In

FY 2011, over 31 million students received free or reduced lunch and about 12 million received free or re-

duced price breakfast every day. USDA is responsible for setting standards for food served as par t of their

meal programs and, as a result of the Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, has also set standards

for food sold in schools outside the school meal program. In addition, USDA has the authority to require

and monitor a requirement that all schools that receive funding under the school meals program have a

Local Wellness Policy.

Other agencies oversee specialty schools. The Bureau of Indian Education in the Depar tment of Interior, for

example, provides suppor t for schools on Native American lands and Alaskan Native villages. The Depar t-

ment of Defense operates schools overseas and on some military bases in the United States through its

Depar tment of Defense Educational Activity.

Several other federal agencies play impor tant roles in providing services students need to learn optimally.

These agencies provide a broad range of suppor ts and services to the education sector, suppor ting all of

the components of school health, from substance abuse services to suicide prevention programs, policy and

practice coordination, and school health personnel. Appendix C contains several examples of these agencies

and their various roles, as well as some grant oppor tunities offered by different federal agencies.

The federal government can also use its key representatives and initiatives to advance and promote par ticu-

lar issues and encourage action across the education field. For example, ED awards “Blue Ribbon Schools”

distinctions annually to individual schools that have met specific academic requirements. It has also awarded

“Green Ribbon Schools” distinctions to individual schools that have made strides in promoting environmental

health and student well-being. USDA recognizes individual schools through its HealthierUS Schools Challenge,

which is given to schools that meet specific criteria for nutrition and physical activity. Appendix C includes

more information about these recognition programs.

Beginning in 2010, First Lady Michelle Obama kicked off her signature

Let’s Move! Initiative, aimed at reducing childhood obesity to five percent

by 2030. Let’s Move! focuses on four key pillars: empowering parents and

helping create environments that support healthy choices; providing healthier

food in schools; ensuring that every family has access to healthy, affordable

foods; and increasing the opportunities for kids to be physically active.

Mrs. Obama has used Let’s Move! to call attention to this issue, as well as

to rally support from all sectors, including business, government, private

nonprofits and foundations, and individual parents, families, and children.

She has used Let’s Move! as a springboard to promote—and celebrate—

actions across the country in cities and towns, public parks and outdoor

spaces, and in schools.

The Let’s Move! initiative promotes and supports a coordinated strategy and

action plan, detailed in a report by the Task Force on Childhood Obesity,

comprised of several federal agencies, which was submitted to President

Barack Obama in 2010. More information, including the Task Force’s report,

can be found on the Let’s Move! website at www.letsmove.gov.

Such initiatives emanating from the First Lady’s office are not unusual and

can provide citizens, businesses, and other organizations additional ways to

support young people. For example, early in President George W. Bush’s first

term, First Lady Laura Bush launched “Ready to Read, Ready to Learn,” an

education initiative that promoted best practices in early childhood education

and raised awareness of innovative teacher training programs.

Let’s Move! and other First Lady Initiatives

�
For more information on
the Let’s Move! initiative,

visit www.letsmove.org

/national organizations’ role in education
Many other national-level non-governmental organizations provide assistance to and set standards for the

education sector. National groups might advocate on behalf of specific issues at the federal and/or state

levels or establish nation-wide standards or guidelines based on evidence or best practices. For example,

one organization cer tifies teachers with a high level of distinction, making those “Board Cer tified” teach-

ers highly sought after by school districts across the nation and elevating those teachers to higher levels

of achievement and honor. Other organizations might represent a group of educators, such as individual

teachers, administrators, or affiliated school staff, who look to the organization to provide technical assis-

tance and professional development, or to advocate for optimal working conditions for staff. Several national

organizations work to suppor t and promote char ter schools. In addition, groups of organizations might work

together to establish and promote an accepted set of national academic standards, such as the current Next

Generation Science Standards. These national groups are influential and often powerful, serving as a unified

voice for many disparate professionals in the education field.

/the state’s role in education
Public education is primarily a state responsibility and the authority for education is relegated to state

governance structures, which vary widely from state to state. For some states, their constitution delin-

eates the state’s authority, while in other states the education code is adopted by the state legislature.

A state’s governor can propose a state budget and new policies or programs, but the state legislature has

to pass these laws or the state board of education has to adopt policies or education regulations or rules,

also known as administrative code. These laws, policies, and administrative codes affect a range of issues,

generally including:

 Education goals and standards;

 Graduation requirements;

 Teacher cer tification standards and professional development requirements;

 Assessment programs and other accountability measures to ensure that school districts and schools

perform at acceptable levels;

 Teacher evaluation standards and guidelines;

 Days or hours required for students per school year;

 School closure in the event of a public health emergency; and

 Time requirements for certain subjects, such as physical education.

While core academic issues have traditionally been the focus for states, they have also passed a wide-ranging

variety of laws and policies related to student health, safety, and wellness, with different requirements and

authorities. The National Association of State Boards of Education’s State School Health Policy Database

includes a state-by-state compilation and description of laws, legal codes, rules, regulations, administrative

The Supremacy Clause,

part of Article VI of the

Constitution, posits that

federal law is the law of the

land. Generally in education

law, if the U.S. Congress has

the authority to make laws,

these laws serve as the basis

for any supplemental laws at

the state or policies or codes

at the local level. In many

cases, federal laws serve as

the “floor” for state or local

laws—the very minimum

standard that must be met—

and states or localities can

set their own laws or policies

that exceed or go beyond

that “floor.”

For example, the Healthy

and Hunger Free Kids Act

of 2010 gave authority to

USDA to regulate foods

sold outside the school

meals program. States have

the ability to set their own

nutrition standards that

exceed those set by USDA,

but states cannot set laws that

defy those standards. In other

words, federal law preempts

state law.

orders, mandates, standards, resolutions, and other written means of

exercising educational authority broadly related to student health, as

well as other available supplemental guidance or non-binding materials,

as available. This database is organized using six broad categories:

curriculum and instruction, staff, health-promoting environment, stu-

dent services, accommodation, and coordination/implementation.

State entities (most often the state board of education) have the au-

thority to decide on and enact academic standards that all students

must meet, usually by grade level. Some states provide guidance on

benchmarks that help assess growth towards academic standards.

While all states emphasize their independence and stress their author-

ity to govern their own schools, it should be noted that parents fre-

quently want to compare their child’s progress with students in other

places. As the United States faces increasing economic competition

from other countries, states’ standards have trended toward looking

more alike than not. For example, all but a few states have now adopted

more rigorous, common academic standards called the Common Core

State Standards, which emphasize higher order thinking skills for math

and English language ar ts.

In addition to some or all of the issues above, state entities, such as

state boards of education, are responsible for overseeing and some-

times authorizing char ter schools, which are public schools that operate

independently of the public school system. These schools offer more

management flexibility than traditional public schools, but are still held

to public performance standards. For school year 2012-2013, there

were over 5,000 char ter schools across the country, with about half of

those in cities. Many entities can serve as “char ter agents” —those

that have authority to grant a char ter to a school—including state

boards of education, independent char ter boards, local school boards,

and universities, depending on individual states’ char ter school law.

�
NASBE’s State School

Health Policy Database can
be found at www.nasbe.
org/healthy_schools/hs

Whose Laws Prevail When There Are Similar
Federal and State (or Local) Laws?

major eDucation players at the state level

State Boards of Education provide educational leadership in a state, serving as policymakers, advocates

for high quality education, liaisons between local level educators and state policymakers, and consensus

builders, ensuring that the public’s voice is reflected in state education policy. The governor appoints state

boards in 33 states, while the boards are elected in 8 states. Four states feature a mix of elected and ap-

pointed members. Minnesota and Wisconsin do not have state boards of education. Nineteen states boards

of education include student members. The number of members on state boards varies, as do the length of

the terms those members serve.

Another impor tant state education leader is the Chief State School Officer (CSSO), also known as the

state superintendent, commissioner, secretary, or director of education. This powerful official functions as

the chief executive officer over the state education agency and is responsible for translating state laws and

policies into programs and regulations. The chief is also the primary public spokesperson for the state public

education system. According to current data (which include states, territories, and the District of Columbia):

 25 CSSOs are appointed by the state board of education;

 17 CSSOs are appointed by the governor (or in DC’s case, the mayor); and

 12 are elected on par tisan or nonpar tisan ballots.

The National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) provides a state-by-state review of all state

governance models that can be found at www.nasbe.org/wp-content/uploads/State-Education-Governance-

2013-State-by-State-Matrix .

States have different names for their state education agency (SEA), such as the state depar tment of educa-

tion or public instruction. For the most par t, career public servants staff the SEA, overseeing many federal

and state programs and distributing funds, developing standards and curriculum guidance, measuring re-

sults and evaluating programs, and providing technical assistance to educators across the state.

The composition of SEA staff positions can vary widely from state to state. Some SEAs include curriculum

and education specialists in a wide range of content areas, as well as specialists devoted to helping low-

performing districts and schools. Other staff members handle legal issues and still others ensure compliance

with federal and state regulations—though in recent years many states have directed SEAs to put more

focus on providing assistance and less on compliance-related “bean counting.”

In addition, SEA staff often par ticipate in multi-sector collaborations with other state agencies and entities

to enhance and amplify the possible impact they can have within schools in the state. Collaboration between

SEAs and state health depar tments in par ticular is likely to grow. Historically, SEAs could receive funding from

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for a position focused on facilitating the implementation

of the Coordinated School Health Program in the state. In 2013, CDC’s funding stream changed, providing

�
State-by-state review of all state

governance models: www.nasbe.
org/education-issue/
education-governance

funding to state health depar tments instead of SEAs. In fact, even before this

change, state health depar tments often had capacity to suppor t school health,

which has been enhanced with this funding change.

/the local role in education
Most states delegate their authority for school control to the local level. The school

district, also known as the local education agency (LEA), is the public school sys-

tem’s primary unit of administration for a designated geographic area. There are

more than 13,000 school districts across the United States, which sometimes

overlap the boundaries of municipal governments. Fur thermore, school district

boundaries do not always correspond with those of other agencies and govern-

ment jurisdictions. The size of districts varies considerably, both in terms of their

geographical size and the number of students they serve. As shown in the char t

below, the vast majority of school districts are small—more than 60 percent of

districts have fewer than 5,000 students. However, more than half of America’s

students are enrolled in fewer than 1,000 districts.

The number of school districts in a given state also varies considerably across the

country. Several states, such as Maryland and Florida, have districts that match

the states’ counties, giving Maryland a total of 24 school districts. Next door in

Pennsylvania there are 514 districts and nearby New Jersey has nearly 600. The

trend throughout the 20th century was to consolidate small or remote school

districts into larger units—in 1952 there were 69,725 school districts, more than

five times as many as today. This trend continues, but at a much slower pace.

The arguments in favor of consolidation (cost savings combined with capacity to

provide additional courses and other services) are countered by fears of losing a

community’s identity, loss of local control, and longer bus rides for some students

if nearby schools are closed.27

In most districts, primary governing authority lies with the local school board. The

school board generally establishes and implements the district’s guiding vision,

makes budget decisions, chooses curriculum, and determines many policies that

guide the daily decisions of the LEA and its schools. A few of the issues local

school boards routinely address include:

 Equitable access to education for all students in the district;

 Local academic and graduation standards (if higher than the state);

Educators are often in

the position of having to

translate and implement

complicated policy into

practical, everyday

actions that involve tens,

hundreds, or thousands of

administrators, teachers

and other school staff,

communities, families, and

students. Whether laws

and policies are passed

and enacted by Congress,

state policymakers, or local

school boards, they can

be difficult to implement—

akin to turning around a

huge, moving ship to head

it in a different direction.

Sometimes, as policymakers

enact new authorities or

policies, they appropriate

funds to help educators

implement any required

changes. But sometimes,

policymakers do not

appropriate enough or any

funds. These requirements

without accompanying

funds are referred to as

“unfunded mandates,”

which create requirements

and expectations to which

states, districts, or schools

are held, without support to

make the changes.

What Is an “Unfunded Mandate?”

District Size # of Districts % of Districts % of Student
Enrollment

TOTAL US 13,629 100% 100%

≥ 25,000 284 2.1 35.0

10,000–24,999 598 4.4 18.9

5,000–9,999 1,044 7.7 15.1

2,500–4,999 1,985 14.6 14.6

1,000–2,499 3,243 23.8 11.0

600–999 1,750 12.8 2.9

300–599 1,891 13.9 1.7

1–299 2,710 19.9 0.8

Number and Enrollment of Regular Public School Districts,
by Enrollment Size of District, 2009-10

*Note: Numbers do not add up to 100 percent or 13,629 because this char t does not reflect the number/percentage of districts not
repor ting their data. This information can be found at www.nces.gov.



 Resources for promoting academic achievement;

 Budget planning;

 Contract negotiations;

 Personnel decisions;

 School closures;

 School area redistricting;

 Transpor tation policies;

 Wellness policies or practices;

 Facilities construction;

 Codes of conduct; and

 Emergency management procedures.

Local school boards can also serve as a body to mediate or arbitrate issues that cannot be resolved at the

school level or that cut across several schools. Local districts are subject to state laws and policies that may

direct, limit, or otherwise influence local policymaking and implementation. Local school boards have full fiscal

authority, often with the ability to levy taxes.

The school district superintendent is the chief executive officer of the local district. In most districts, the

school board hires the superintendent. Superintendents are responsible for providing educational leader-

ship, translating policy into practical operating procedures, managing district personnel, and serving as the

district’s public spokesperson. In an emergency or crisis, the superintendent is the official in charge.

School districts are typically suppor ted by the “central office” staff, who help develop and implement district

policies and programs. The number of staff members depends on the district’s size and resources, and

might include curriculum or instruction specialists in specific content areas, including health-related content.

LEAs are often in the position of having to implement state requirements and directives, which

are sometimes driven by federal or national initiatives, such as the required periodic testing

of students as required by NCLB. Although states are responsible for the creation of academic

standards against which students are measured and for designing tests that assess student

progress, LEAs are responsible for administering, overseeing, and managing the testing

requirements. Schools are under considerable pressure to reach the goals established for them

and hence much of what educators think about, discuss, plan for, and communicate about is

related to testing and standards. As such, other issues that seem to take attention away from

testing and standards may need to reflect these critical priorities. One of the best ways to frame

this (at the state or local level) is to consider how your assistance or program will help the school

or school system achieve any of its primary goals.

Helping Schools Achieve Their Goals

School districts might also have supplemental committees that suppor t and guide district policies and prac-

tices. For example, some school districts have committees, such as wellness committees, that are responsible

for making recommendations to the school board. Other districts have citizen-led committees that make

recommendations to the school board on a variety of curricular content areas.

/the individual school
No single, uniform model exists for a school’s organization by grade or age. The most commonly used model

arranges schools by clusters of grades, for example elementary schools (comprised of grades K-5), middle

schools (grades 6-8), and high schools (grades 9-12). However, several variations within this arrangement

exist, clustering different grades together in different levels or even within a school. Schools, even within the

same school district, may vary greatly in their arrangement of students, schedules, and teaching models; in

one school in a district, students may get new teachers every year while in a neighboring school, teachers

may “loop” with students through several or all grades. Some schools in a district may use a “year round”

schedule, while the rest of the schools are on a traditional nine-month calendar. The district administrator

and the school board typically make decisions regarding school structure.

Schools in a district can also vary in quality and character. Characteristics of an effective school

include:

 Strong administrative leadership;

 A clear school vision and mission;

 A safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning;

 A welcoming staff and faculty that connect with students and make them feel valued;

 School-wide emphasis and commitment to learning for all;

 High teacher expectations for student achievement;

 Regular, periodic assessment;

 Active parent/family involvement;

 A commitment to addressing barriers to student learning; and

 Policies that are fair and equitable and are enforced consistently.28

All schools have a personality and character that is largely determined by and reflective of leadership, faculty

and staff, and the community’s values. Ideally, schools are designed and operated to bring out the best in all

students, helping them to develop and learn in an optimal environment.

The principal is the key decision-maker at every school. This person supervises the school’s instructional

program, maintains order and discipline, enforces federal, state, and district rules, policies, and laws; evalu-

ates and suppor ts teachers; and represents the school to parents and the community. Some schools have

one or more assistant principals. Principals are the gatekeepers of a school and have the authority and re-

sponsibility to make decisions about most aspects of the school’s operation and day-to-day management. In

addition, most exper ts have been calling for principals to be the instructional leaders of their schools rather

than just managers who handle administrative issues.29 There is little doubt that both responsibilities and

accountability for principals have increased in recent years.

Classroom teachers and other instructional personnel have the authority and responsibility for their own

classroom operations, how they deliver lessons and curriculum, and how they help students work towards

established state standards. Teachers receive

a license from a state entity that allows them

to be hired by an LEA and that indicates they

have exper tise in a specific area of teach-

ing, such as elementary education or, at the

secondary level, in content areas. Teachers

are powerful agents in a school, serving as

instructors and role models in the classroom,

and can rise as leaders in a school, commu-

nity, and LEA. Teachers are the “front line,”

interacting with students every day. They often

know students best in the learning environ-

ment, and can promote healthy behaviors and

positive social interactions. They can also be

the first to detect when something is not right

with a student.

Other personnel are critical for school func-

tioning and are increasingly being recognized

for the role they play in establishing the cul-

ture and climate of a school; the roles and re-

sponsibilities of these personnel are detailed

in Appendix B.

Using District Tools to Highlight Health

�
View sample school scorecards
at www.cps.edu/schools/
pages/scorecards.aspx

One of the largest school systems in the nation, Chicago Public Schools, features a

unique school report card format. The school report cards include information such as

the overall rating of the school, a comparison with other schools in the area, as well

as information about student progress and performance. In addition, the report cards

highlight data on the school’s culture and climate from the district’s “My voice, My

School” survey, and if a school is “Healthy Schools Certifi ed,” which means that it has

met the criteria for the USDA’s healthierUS Schools challenge.

To see sample school scorecards, go to www.cps.edu/schools/pages/scorecards.aspx.

Lafayette County Public Schools in Lexington, Kentucky uses a stand-alone report card

for district wellness activities, which reviews nutrition and physical education across the

county’s schools. The report emphasizes key issues for the community and

includes the goals and initiatives to improve student wellness.

For more information on Lafayette County Public

Schools Wellness Report Card, go to

www.fcps.net/wellness.

indicated by italics. Appendix B describes the various adults who suppor t teaching and learning. Appendix C
is a list of federal programs and resources that suppor t schools and students in the school setting. Appendix

D is a list of additional resources.

chapter 3 /

how to work
with schools
28 Guiding Principles and Concepts for

Working with Schools
30 Practical Steps for Working

with Schools

Schools are a natural ally for most sectors in a community, offering access to a large percentage of youth in

the community to engage on any number of different issues. However, accessing schools is not an easy task.

Before even initiating contact to propose an idea or concept for a program, intervention, or par tnership,

there are numerous steps that the individual or organization must consider and actions they must take. This

section will describe:

 Guiding principles for working with schools;

 Questions to consider before, during, and after approaching an education sector par tner;

 Steps to under take before, during, and after approaching the education sector with an idea, concept,

or proposal; and

 Resources to help develop a comprehensive action plan.

/guiding principles and concepts for working with schools
As you prepare for discussions with education officials or school staff, it is helpful to keep these key principles

in mind:

 Education’s primary goal is to educate students, so any actions proposed must suppor t—

either directly or indirectly—this goal.

 Health, safety, development, and well-being may be secondary priorities for the

education par tner.

 Concerns about safety, in par ticular, can affect access to some schools.

 Like all professional worksites, schools are busy places; your involvement with them must be

carefully planned.

 School leaders and personnel have multiple responsibilities and priorities and your issue may
28

not be one. It is your responsibility to know

what their priorities actually are.

 The needs of schools differ from district to

district and often from school to school within

the same district. Don’t make assumptions

based on one class or one school.

 Education decision-making is diffused

and variable. Some decisions are made at

school level, while others are made at the

district level and still others at the state level.

Fur ther, multiple people or groups are usually

involved in the decision-making process.

 There are often several levels of review that

must be conducted before decisions are made,

so the decision-making process could take

a long time.

 Education leaders recognize they cannot

address all of their needs alone; they

need outside help, but that help must conform

to their governing laws, rules, regulations,

and practices.

 Education, like other sectors, has its

own acronyms and terminology. People

and organizations wanting to engage with

schools should become familiar with their

acronyms, terms, and phases; many can be

found in Appendix A.

Like all relationships, a cer tain amount of give and

take is required when working with the education

sector. Because of its unique place in a community,

schools are often a flashpoint for deeply held—and

often conflicting—beliefs, viewpoints, and ideals. Ad-

ditionally, the education sector is unique in its varying

Although needs vary from district to
district and from school to school,
school leaders and staff may welcome
involvement or assistance with issues
such as:

Participating on a school health
advisory or coordinating council at the
state, district, or school level;

Sitting on other educational advisory
boards or task forces;

Navigating the complex health, social
services, and juvenile justice systems;

Conducting professional development
activities for personnel on health,
mental health, social services, and
juvenile justice issues;

Offering opportunities for students
to participate in community
service programs;

Coordinating school health and
community health promotion efforts;

Serving as experts or technical
advisors;

Helping raise or locate funds to support
specific health-related activities;

Volunteering to serve as guest speaker
on health-related issues;

Helping establish and/or test
emergency plans and procedures, such
as acute medical emergencies or more
long-term events, like an infectious
disease outbreak; and

Providing research, survey, or materials
development expertise on a range
of issues.

How Can I Help Promote School and Student Health, Safety, and Well-Being?

array of decision-makers and governing bodies, each with its own influences and agendas. Sometimes,

educators can feel they are only cogs in a big machine, over which they have little or no control, depending

on their level and sphere of influence. State-level educators might feel confined by the requirements of the

federal government, while those in a school district might feel constrained by their state rules and regula-

tions. At the school level, principals often feel equal pressure from the school district, parents, teachers, and

students in their school, which they might convey to their faculty and staff. These concerns can overshadow

or underlie interactions with educators, which may not be apparent to those outside the

education sector.

As with all professional par tnerships and interactions, much success comes from building relationships by

listening to one another and treating each other with respect.

Besides being preoccupied with other priorities, the education sector may not be aware of or have the capac-

ity to manage the problems with which you are concerned. If this is the case, you might find it helpful to have

additional data to help inform educators, as well as the suppor t of others in your and other sectors. Practical

steps for approaching educators are discussed below.

/practical steps for working with schools
Before you approach your eDucation sector partner

Before approaching an education par tner, it is helpful to have previously established a personal relationship

with the person or group of people with whom you would like to speak. This may be as simple as initiating a

telephone call to introduce yourself, arranging for an introduction by a mutual colleague or friend, or attend-

ing board meetings and getting to know people there. As with most personal and professional endeavors,

people generally find it easier to collaborate with others when there is some level of individual connection.

Even before approaching your education par tner, you should consider ways to create connections and build

relationships.

These initial contacts will also help you create a network of relationships with your education par tner and

might help you identify a “champion” for your issue or idea. A champion can be anyone within the educa-

tion system, from a board member or a superintendent, to a principal, a teacher, a parent, or a student.

Champions have the passion and commitment to help you navigate occasionally difficult waters and advance

change. The power of champions is strong, so whenever possible identify a champion before you approach

your education par tner. When you make initial contacts with new colleagues, you can ask them about others

who care about your issue and then ask to be introduced to that person or people. It might take some time

to identify or develop a champion (and you may eventually need to proceed without one), but you should

continually consider who your par tners and champions might be.

Once you establish some basic relationships and have potentially identified a champion to help you with your

work, you should consider the following basic steps, several of which can and should be done concurrently.

Your personal commitment to your initiative—and the knowledge that you have done your “homework” by

developing a level of understanding and respect for your education par tner, as well as identifying a potential

ally within the education sector—will help you proceed with greater ease.

1
Decide what category your issue falls into and the decision-making level that must be
involved to create lasting change.

It is helpful to understand how schools approach issues, ranging from delivering academic content to ap-

proaching those activities that suppor t learning yet fall outside the academic mission of education. These

categories are:

 Curriculum

 Policy

 Practice

 Service provision and/or coordination

 Personnel

 Supplemental or suppor tive programs

If you are approaching the education sector with ideas or proposals for action, you should first determine the

category into which your intervention might fall—again, while also ar ticulating how you are helping educa-

tors meet their ongoing, overriding mission.

Once you ar ticulate your issue and determine the general category into which it falls, you should research

how decisions about that issue are made in your state and school district. Additionally, you must determine

who has the authority to make decisions around your issue, as well as supply the necessary implementation

and monitoring suppor t at all levels. For example, if your goal is to increase the amount of nutrition educa-

tion at a school or within a school district, you should first determine what nutrition concepts are already

included in the standards and curriculum. Then, you should determine the process through which curricula

are changed, amended, or updated and at what level these changes would need to be made, such as at

the school, district, or state level, and who has the authority to make these changes. Likewise, if your goal

is that all school emergency plans across the state include considerations for infectious disease outbreaks,

you must first determine who has the authority to adopt such requirements, as well as who would suppor t

its adoption, provide resources, and monitor the implementation at the state, school district, and school

building levels.

2
Learn as much as possible about the state, school district, or school you want to work with,
as well as their history with or position on your issue.

Like any professional pitch, you should prepare as carefully as possible. This might include researching:

 SEA, LEA, and school websites (most schools and school districts have their own web page) to

learn more about demographics, approaches, available assets and resources, personnel resources

and needs, existing policies, and politics;

 State or local school board meeting summaries or minutes, which are public and often

available on-line. In addition, more boards are now webcasting their meetings. At the school level, PTA

meeting minutes might also be available, but it could also be valuable to attend a meeting;

 Public social media pages for schools, districts, or individual education leaders, such as pages on

Facebook or Twitter accounts, to learn more about their priorities. For example, does a school have a

recycling program or an annual walk-a-thon? Is the key fundraiser at a pizzeria or is it holding a flea

market?

 Any surveys or assessments that the SEA, LEA, or school might have conducted within the

past five years to provide relevant data regarding the problem you are addressing. These data sets

might assess student behavior, attitudes, and knowledge related to risk factors, assets and resources,

or policies and programs;

 Any other data sets or studies prepared by other agencies (at the local, state, and federal

levels) that involve schools or children in the target area. If these data are available, you should

consider how they interact and affect your issue and the health, well-being, and most impor tantly,

academic achievement and other outcomes of the students. Examples of how these data might

interact were highlighted in section one of this document. Pay par ticular attention to agencies that

deal with juvenile justice, mental health, public health, and housing; and

 Available funding to schools or students in schools from a variety of sources, including federal,

state, local, philanthropic, nonprofit, business, or school-based fundraising effor ts.

3
Seek out other partners in the community with similar goals.

In most states and communities, there is more than one person or organization interested in or already

working on your par ticular issue or a similar issue. It is prudent to seek out their help and assistance, as

par tnerships can boost your credibility, reduce costs, and add resources to your cause. If your approach or

philosophy differs from that of your sector par tners, you will need to know this and be able to address any

differences you have. For example, you might consult with:

 Public health officials and entities;

 Juvenile justice personnel including police, probation, and juvenile cour t personnel;

 Mental health providers and the state/local mental health authority;

 Public housing officials; and

 Faith-based youth service providers.

In your discussions with these other sectors, you should ask whom they are working with in the education

sector and if they have identified a champion for your mutual issue.

Where Can I Find Reliable Data about My Issue?

school demographics
COmmOn COrE Of EDUCATiOn DATA (CCD) annually col-
lects fiscal and nonfiscal data about all U.S. public schools, pub-
lic school districts, and state education agencies, including name,
address, and phone number; descriptive information about stu-
dents and staff, including demographics; and fiscal data, includ-
ing revenues and current expenditures (www.nces.ed.gov/ccd).

SchooL and Staffing SUrvey provides descriptive data on
the context of elementary and secondary education, statistics on
the condition of U.S. education, and information on topics such
as teacher and principal characteristics, teacher’s perception of
school climate, teacher compensation, and basic characteristics of
the student population (www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass).

school policies and practices
SChOOL hEALTh POLiCiES AnD PrACTiCES STUDy is a
national survey periodically conducted to assess school health poli-
cies and practices at the state, district, school, and classroom levels
(www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/shpps).

SchooL heaLth ProfiLeS is a system of surveys assessing
school health policies and practices in states, large urban school
districts, territories, and tribal governments. Profiles surveys are
conducted every two years by education and health agencies
among middle and high school principals and lead health educa-
tion teachers (www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/profiles).

youth health and risk behavior data
yOUTh riSk BEhAviOr SUrvEiLLAnCE SySTEm
(yrBSS) monitors six types of health-risk behaviors that contrib-
ute to the leading causes of death and disability among youth
and adults, including behaviors that contribute to unintentional
injuries and violence; alcohol and other drug use; tobacco use;
sexual behaviors that contribute to unintended pregnancy and
sexually transmitted diseases and hiv; unhealthy dietary behav-
iors; and physical activity. yrBSS is a bi-annual survey that in-
cludes a national school-based survey and local surveys (www.
cdc.gov/yrbss).

The type and periodicity

of available data will vary

between states, districts, and

schools, but might include

assessments from the sources

listed here. Some data will

be available only at the

national level, while some

might be available at the state

or local state levels. Several

states have developed their

own survey instruments and

some districts use their own

assessments. The data sources

included here provide data

on a range of health, safety,

and wellness issues. Most

provide national-level data,

though some include data

for participating states or

local areas. A few sources

below suggest state or local

resources to research, but

these will differ across and

between states and localities

in their availability. You

should refer to the most recent

available data, but be aware

that they might not be the

current, immediately past, or

even a recent year. You might

also review trends over time,

if this information is available.

AmEriCA’S ChiLDrEn: kEy nATiOnAL inDiCA-
TOrS Of WELL BEing is a compendium of indicators
depicting both the challenges and promises facing our
nation’s young people. the report contains 41 indicators
on important aspects of children’s lives. twenty-two feder-
al agencies contribute to the report (www.childstats.gov).

mOniTOring ThE fUTUrE is an annual study of
8th, 10th, and 12th grade students about their attitudes,
values, and behaviors related to alcohol and drug use
(www.monitoringthefuture.org).

hoUSehoLd SUrvey on drUg USe and heaLth
(nSdUh) provides national and state-level data on the
use of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs, as well as men-
tal health among those 12 and older (www.oas.samhsa.
gov/nhsda.htm).

nATiOnAL yOUTh TOBACCO SUrvEy (nyTS),
administered periodically, provides national data about
middle and high school youth’s tobacco-related beliefs,
attitudes, behaviors, and exposure to pro- and anti-tobac-
co influences (www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/
surveys/nyts).

nATiOnAL SUrvEy Of fAmiLy grOWTh is a pe-
riodic study of americans aged 15-44 that gathers infor-
mation on family life, marriage and divorce, pregnancy,
infertility, use of contraception, and men’s and women’s
health (www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm).

nATiOnAL hEALTh AnD nUTriTiOn ExAminA-
TiOn SUrvEy (nhAnES) is a nationally represen-
tative program of studies designed to assess the health
and nutritional status of adults and children in the United

States. the survey is unique in that it combines interviews
and physical examinations. in 2012, the nhaneS in-
cluded the national youth fitness Survey, which collected
nationally representative data on physical activity and
fitness levels of children and adolescents in the United
States through interviews and fitness tests (www.cdc.gov/
nchs/nhanes.htm).

inDiCATOrS Of SChOOL CrimE AnD SAfETy is a
nationally focused annual report published by the depart-
ments of education and Justice. the report presents the
most recent data available on school crime and school
safety. the indicators in the report are based on informa-
tion drawn from a variety of data sources (www.nces.
ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators).

SChOOL CrimE SUPPLEmEnT TO ThE nATiOnAL
CrimE viCTimizATiOn SUrvEy, administered pe-
riodically, is used to develop a report entitled, Student
victimization in U.S. Schools. the report provides nation-
al-level findings on student reports on numerous topics,
including the presence of gangs and weapons in school
and the availability of drugs and alcohol. the report
also includes data on bullying in schools and fear and
avoidance behaviors of students (www.nces.ed.gov/pro-
grams/crime).

SChOOL SUrvEy On CrimE AnD SAfETy
(SSOCS) is the primary source of school-level data on
crime and safety. the SSocS is designed to provide es-
timates of school crime, discipline, disorder, programs,
and policies. SSocS is administered to public primary,
middle, high, and combined school principals every oth-
er year (www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs).

4
Prepare a detailed initial proposal, which should include, at a minimum:

 A description of your proposed intervention (curriculum, policy, practice, personnel, services, or

program), including a description of how your proposal will help educators meet their goals of

positively impacting academic achievement, reducing educational disparities, and/or streamlining or

maximizing assets and resources;

 A description of how your proposal builds onto or amplifies ongoing work that the education par tner is

already doing, if possible;

 Metrics on the target population, including the potential number of people affected/served by the

intervention;

 If the intervention is targeted to a small group, such as one classroom or one grade, how it might be

scaled up to include the whole school, school district, or state;

 The total potential cost of the intervention, broken out between costs to be incurred by the school

system and by the person/organization approaching the school (for policy interventions, consider the

potential costs of implementation, including unintended and intended consequences);

 The time commitment needed to effectively implement the intervention. If your request is going to take

time away from academics, educators will want to know how much time and how your intervention will

suppor t academic achievement;

 The staff commitment necessary, such as how many staff members are needed and for how long;

 The staff training if needed, including who will conduct the training; when the training will occur; and

who is going to bear the cost of the training. Remember, teachers require compensation for any

training outside their core hours, and if they are trained during school, schools will need to find and

pay substitute teachers;

 The proposed star t and end times of the initiative;

 The projected impacts and desired outcomes of your proposed intervention (the more this can be

quantified, the better); and

 A description of any approvals that may be needed to implement your request. Note that for many

surveys, parents will need to provide consent for their child’s par ticipation, and the types of questions

asked would be limited.

5
Plan for contingencies and possible twists and turns.

Your initial idea or proposal may, for a variety of reasons, be completely or par tially rejected at the

first meeting. You are encouraged to think through some options to your original plan in case your

Tips on Engaging Schools: Before the Initial Meeting

first idea is found to be unac-

ceptable. The result of the visit

or interaction might merely be

valuable for building a relation-

ship; just because an idea isn’t

found workable or acceptable at

the current time does not mean

future opportunities won’t pres-

ent themselves—which might be

facilitated if a good relationship

is maintained.

Specifically, you should consider

what elements of your inter ven-

tion or plan you could change or

let go without seriously altering

the intent of the inter vention.

You should have a clear idea of

your “deal breakers”—those

par ts of your inter vention or

plan that are essential and can-

not be altered. For example, if

your inter vention requires five

lessons to be integrated into a

health education curriculum by

specific staff members using a

specific lesson plan guide, you

should consider whether each

element is absolutely essential

and what you would say if your

par tner were to ask to change

any element. You may also be

asked to provide funds, share a

funded position, or give up some

of your authority or control of

the situation. You should con-

sider how you might respond to

any or all of these requests.

1
Initiate personal relationships with those you would like to be

working with, either through an introduction or arranging
an opportunity to meet.

2
If possible, identify potential champions within the

education sector.

3
Set up an appointment, (DON’T show up unannounced), know
how much time you have to discuss your issue, and tailor your

presentation accordingly. Know and respect the school calendar
and schedule; some times of day and times of year are better

than others to try to meet with educators.

4
Be sure that you tie the problem/issue you want to address with the
school to teaching, learning, and academic achievement. School
officials are more likely to want to collaborate with you if you can

show how your proposal can help them meet their goals.

5
Know how much time is allocated to your meeting and plan your
presentation to include time for questions. It is a good practice to
ask before the meeting if schedules have changed, as schedules

change frequently in schools.

6
Be sure any handouts address the issue in as brief a manner

as possible.

7
Present metrics and data in a way that is easily comprehensible

and not filled with jargon.

8
Use social media to ascertain whether there are other individuals

or groups interested in joining you in addressing your issue, as well
as to learn more about the priorities of your education partners.

Tips on Engaging Schools: Before the Initial Meeting

During your visit

Once you determine who the most appropriate audience

is for your proposal and the ways your proposal suppor ts

the education par tner’s goals, set up a time to meet or

talk with them. As you think through your meeting, you

may find it helpful to think about your language and the

way that you describe your proposed initiative, and en-

sure that the terminology and acronyms you use will be

applicable to and understood by the education sector. As

with many sectors, education has its own language, so

the same words may have different meanings in each sec-

tor. For example, terms such as “surveillance,” “monitor-

ing,” or “assessment” have different practical meanings

and connotations in the fields of public health, education,

mental health, and juvenile justice. As public health talks

about “disparities” or “health equity,” education might

use the phrase “achievement gap.” You should consider

the language you use to describe your initiative so you can

be as clear as possible during the meeting, making the

issues as relevant to the audience as possible—and en-

suring that you are talking about the same set of issues.

During your visit to the school/school district, there are

things you should remember to do:

1. Listen. Listen more. And listen again, ensuring

that you respect what everyone is saying.

2. Make your presentation. Change is never easy,

so you should have a professional presentation,

using visual aids or tools. It should be persuasive,

on-point, and respectful of your listeners’ time.

3. Make sure that there is ample time set aside

for questions. If there are questions that cannot

be immediately answered or additional information

that is needed, determine who is the proper person

to send it to, and when that person needs it.

4. Be flexible and prepared to deviate from

your original proposal. For the most par t

changes in or additions to policies, programs,

or practices are done through give and take on

1
Know your contact person for the

meeting, as the people might change
or be different from those you spoke to
when setting up the meeting. It is also
important to know the background of
the person you are meeting with and

the issues that are important to him/her.

2
If a projector and/or laptop are
needed to operate a PowerPoint

or other presentation, know whose
responsibility it is to provide the

equipment. If you bring your own gear,
make sure you know how to operate it.
If you use your host’s equipment know

how it works prior to the meeting.

3
Be gracious! Often these types of

meetings are in addition to the other
duties and responsibilities of those you

are meeting with.

4
Be sure they know how to get in touch

with you after the meeting for follow-up.

Tips on Engaging Schools: During Your Initial Meeting

1
Don’t burn bridges

and don’t give up—it
often takes several

meetings—and
sometimes years—
to gain a favorable
decision. Persevere

if you believe in your
proposal.

2
Consider engaging

other schools or
school districts.

3
Consider other options
for implementing your
proposal. If what you
are proposing involves

a specific program,
consider approaching

other youth-serving
organizations with

your idea.

4
Consider repackaging

your proposal.

Tips on Engaging Schools: After An Unfavorable Decision Has Been Made

specific components of the issue being discussed. The education par tner may be willing to adopt

some provisions of your proposal, but not all of them. Know your “deal breakers,” but otherwise be

flexible and willing to negotiate. You are building a par tnership, so the extent you are able to give and

take may determine the quality of the outcomes.

5. Ask about the decision-making process, including who will make the final decision and

when the decision is expected. Ask whether there is a process for appealing an unfavorable

decision. Also, ask to have the rationale for the decision in writing.

after the visit

Immediately after engaging with your education par tner, follow up as soon as possible with a note or email

to thank the par tner for the discussion or meeting, and to summarize key points or decisions, provide any

additional information, ideas, or questions, and confirm the process for follow-up in the days, weeks, and

months ahead.

The education par tner will likely be back in touch with a decision on moving forward with your specific pro-

posal, deciding favorably, unfavorably, or provisionally. Depending on the answer you receive, you might

consider taking the following actions.

favoraBle Decision

 Determine next steps, including expectations of roles and responsibilities.

 Determine the mechanisms you will use to formalize the relationship, potentially including a joint use

agreement, memorandum of understanding, or contract.

 Decide if it is necessary to delineate protocols, policies, or processes, which might help explain the

interaction and relationship that would endure beyond personal relationships.

 Ensure that contracts/subcontracts and other financial actions (timing of distribution of funds, time

limits on expenditures, allowable activities) are understood and signed.

 If the proposed program involves any sor t of survey, ensure rules regarding surveys are followed.

unfavoraBle Decision

 Ask for comments, in writing if possible, as to why the proposal was denied.

 Inquire whether the entity would be amenable to reviewing an alternate proposal. Depending on

the rationale for denying your proposal, the entity may be amenable to receiving another proposal

provided issues identified as problematic are corrected.

 Review procedures for appealing the decision. Every decision-making entity has its own rules

regarding what actions can and cannot be appealed, the timeframe for an appeal, who can appeal,

and the persons/bodies that make the final decisions regarding an appeal.

 Make all par tners, including the specific LEA or school, aware of decision.

provisional Decision

 Determine what changes the school/school district is proposing.

 Review changes to ensure:

1. The integrity of the proposal is not lost—that is, you are essentially still doing what you set out to do;

2. That you still have the capacity and willingness to adapt to proposed changes; and

3. That you can adapt to any new proposed timeline.

 If there are par ts of what is being proposed by the education par tner that you don’t agree with,

negotiate. As this is a par tnership, your education par tners are likely to consider working together to

build consensus and make changes to the proposal.

45 40

Under federal law, if an LEA or SEA receives funds under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it is subject to
the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which
prohibits schools from sharing student-level information
with anyone outside the school setting or with specific
partners without a parent’s or guardian’s consent. If data are
collected in a manner that the information cannot be traced
back to an individual student, such as by using an identifier
used only for data collection purposes, the school district or
school may be able to share de-identified data outside the
school setting, such as with public health partners. However,
if the data set only contains a few students’ information and
it may be possible to figure out who the student in question
would be, those data cannot be shared, regardless of the
fact that it does not include identifying information. Data
can be shared with other partners outside of schools if the
school has permission from parents or guardians, or in very
specific emergency cases in which the health or safety of a
student is in question.

For example, if a state health department wanted to assess
vaccination coverage in specific school districts across a

�
Answers to student health and

education records can be found at
www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/
understanding/coveredentities/

hipaaferpajointguide

state, the school districts would need to determine if this
information was part of the student’s education record.
If so, the school districts could request permission from
parent/guardians to share this information and the health
department could proceed in sampling, collecting, and
analyzing data. Again, the public health department would
need to ensure that the data could not be linked back to
specific students. Alternatively, the health department could
collaborate with the school district and ask that they collect
aggregate data from specific school districts or schools, and
then share aggregate data with the health department (for
example, the total percentage of students who report being
fully immunized on school entrance forms in the 6th grade).
If however, the data are part of a student’s medical record,
as would be the case with records kept by a school nurse
who is employed by the health department, these records
would be subject to the Health Information Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA)30 rather than FERPA.

The Departments of Education and Health and Human
Services jointly released guidance to help navigate these
complicated issues. The guide answers many questions
related to student health and education records and can be
found www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/
coveredentities/hipaaferpa

jointguide .

Generally, LEAs and SEAs are cautious about violating
student privacy and may be apprehensive about data
sharing or might refuse to do so. Always consult your entity’s
legal counsel and, if possible, have that person consult
directly with the education partner’s counsel.

“I Want Data from Schools for My Research.
Why Is the Education Sector Unwilling to Share Data?”

This guide is intended to help you—as a policymaker, state or local government official, community nonprofit

professional, or an individual parent or citizen—understand and navigate the complex and multi-faceted

education landscape. Ultimately, everyone involved in education has the same goal of creating a genera-

tion of well-educated, healthy, productive, and engaged citizens. It is the responsibility of adults in the na-

tion, states, and communities to create and sustain institutions that suppor t and enhance child and youth

health and development, in suppor t of and consistent with the goals of improving educational outcomes

and academic achievement. The education sector cannot achieve its goals alone: education leaders need

the suppor t, resources, and vision of par tners from the health and mental health, juvenile justice, and affili-

ated sectors. With the lessons learned in this guide, par tners can work collaboratively and meaningfully to

optimally meet the needs of the education sector—and ultimately suppor t the growth and development of

future generations of students.

21st Century Schools Program: A U.S. Depar tment of Edu-

cation program suppor ting the creation of community learning

centers that provide academic enrichment oppor tunities during

non-school hours for children, par ticularly students who attend

high-pover ty and low-performing schools. The programming

can also include physical activity and nutrition education. (http://

www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/

dex.html)

Section 504: Section 504 of the

Individuals with Disabilities

Act of 2004 regulations require school districts to provide a

“Free Appropriate Public Education” (FAPE) to each qualified

student with a disability who is in the school district’s jurisdic-

tion, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability. Under

Section 504, FAPE consists of the provision of regular or spe-

cial education and related aids and services designed to meet

the student’s individual educational needs as adequately as the

needs of nondisabled students are met.

Alternative school: A school that is frequently geared toward

students who are at-risk of dropping out of school. Alternative

schools generally offer a more flexible, nontraditional approach

to teaching and learning.

ADA: See “Average Daily Attendance.”

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A set of annual academic per-

formance benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and

subpopulations of students must achieve. AYP is a requirement

of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Appropriation: Funding provided for a specific project or pro-

gram.

Area Education Association: An organization representing

a group of school districts, often providing technical assistance

to those districts.

At-risk student: A term applied to students who are at risk of

educational failure due to lack of services, negative life events,

or physical or mental challenges.

Authority (or authorized or authorization): The legal

right to set policy, make decisions, or undertake certain activities.

Average daily attendance (ADA): Used for determining

appendix a /
glossary of
common
education
terms

funding levels, ADA is calculated

as the total number of days of

student attendance divided by the

total number of days in the regular

school year.

AYP: see “Adequate Yearly

Progress.”

Bilingual education: The use of

two languages for instruction. Stu-

dents in most bilingual classes or

programs are those who have not

acquired full use of the English lan-

guage, so they are taught academic

content in their native language

while they continue to learn English.

Blue Ribbon School: A U.S. De-

par tment of Education distinction

bestowed on a school for meet-

ing specific academic benchmarks.

(http://www2.ed.gov/progr ams/

nclbbrs/index.html)

Bureau of Indian Education

schools (BIE): BIE’s mission is

to provide quality educational op-

por tunities from early childhood

through life in accordance with a

tribe’s needs for cultural and eco-

nomic well-being, in keeping with

the wide diversity of Indian tribes

and Alaska Native villages as dis-

tinct cultural and governmental en-

tities. (www.bie.edu)

Charter school: A school run in-

dependently of the traditional public

school system but receiving public

funding, often run by groups such

as teachers, parents, or founda-

tions, and in some cases for-profit

businesses. Char ter schools are

exempt from many state and local

rules, policies and regulations, but

their char ter must be approved by

a public entity, often a local or state

board of education. (www.char ter-

schoolcenter.org/)

Common Core State Standards:

A set of voluntary state standards

in math and English language ar ts

that provide clearer, consistent,

and internationally benchmarked

academic goals for all students. As

of December 2013, 45 states, the

District of Columbia, four territories,

and the Depar tment of Defense

Activity have adopted the Common

Core State Standards. Minnesota

is using only the English language

ar ts por tion of the standards.

(www.corestandards.org/)

Coordinated school health

program: A model developed by

the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention to connect health and

education. The program consists

of eight interactive components:

health education, physical educa-

tion, health services, nutrition ser-

vices, health promotion for staff,

counseling and psychological ser-

vices, healthy school environment,

and parent/community involvement.

(www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/cshp/

index.htm)

Curriculum: A sequential, progres-

sive course of studies that conveys

content to students to help them

achieve their academic goals, as

defined by a school district or state.

Department of Defense Educa-

tion Activity (DoDEA) school: A

school operated by the Depar tment

of Defense, either overseas or on

a military base in the United States.

(www.dodea.edu/)

Dropout: A student who leaves

school before receiving a high

school diploma.

Early childhood education:

Education that takes place from 0-6

years of age, often encompassing

preschool education, prekindergar-

ten, and kindergar ten. Some orga-

nizations would like to see it extend

from preschool through third grade.

Elementary school: A school fo-

cused on the lower grades, typically

from kindergar ten through fifth or

sixth grades.

Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA): Originally

passed in 1965, ESEA is the law that

governs many educational activities

in the United States and provides the

authority for the U.S. Depar tment of

Education. It includes provisions for

setting academic standards, testing

students, providing information to

parents, and disaggregating data to

show true academic gaps between

racial/ethnic groups that must be

adhered to by all states, districts,

and schools receiving federal K-12

education funds under Title I of the

act. (http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/land-

ing.jhtml?src=ln)

Emergency plan: A dynamic doc-

ument, required for all schools that

details contingencies and plans

for a variety of possible crises or

acute or ongoing threats to safety

that might occur in a school.

ESEA: See “Elementary and Sec-

ondary Education Act.”

Family Education Rights and

Protection Act (FERPA): A

federal law that safeguards the

privacy of a student’s education

records, which cannot be shared

outside a school except under

cer tain, defined circumstances,

without a parent’s or of-age stu-

dent’s consent.

FAPE: See “Free Appropriate

Public Educa

tion.”

FERPA: See “Family Education

Rights and Privacy Act.”

Free and appropriate public

education (FAPE): A standard

defined under Individuals with Dis-

abilities Education Act requiring

that students with disabilities have

access to the same quality public

education as their non-disabled

peers.

Green Ribbon School: A school

that has received recognition

from the U.S. Depar tment of Edu-

cation on a set of criteria related

to environmental stewardship, en-

ergy use, and other issues related

to school wellness. (http://www2.

ed.gov/programs/green-ribbon-

schools/index.html)

Health education: A set of

educational learning experiences

that convey knowledge and skills

about a set of health topics.

HealthierUS Schools Chal-

lenge: The HealthierUS School

Challenge (HUSSC) is a voluntary

cer tification initiative recognizing

those schools enrolled in the U.S.

Depar tment of Agriculture’s Food

and Nutrition Service’s Team Nu-

trition that have created healthier

school environments through pro-

motion of nutrition and physical

activity. (www.fns.usda.gov/hussc)

High school: A secondary

school that typically includes 9th

through 12th grades.

Homeschooling: The practice

of parents teaching their children

at home rather than sending them

to public or private schools in the

community.

IDEA: See “Individuals with Dis-

abilities Act.”

IEP: See “Individualized Educa-

tion Plan.”

Individuals with Disabilities

Act (IDEA) of 2004: The feder-

al law that ensures that students

with disabilities from bir th to age

21 have access to the same edu-

cational quality and services as

their non-disabled peers. IDEA

has provisions that provide for-

mula funding to states to provide

services to students with disabili-

ties, including high-level medical

services in some cases, as well as

technical assistance and suppor t

to parents and caregivers, both

at home and at school. For more

information on IDEA, please see

www.idea.ed.gov.

Individualized education

plan (IEP): Under IDEA, every

qualifying student receives this

personalized plan that details

all the services and educational

components required to help the

student meet his or her own aca-

demic goals. The IEP guides ac-

tions for families and school per-

sonnel, and should be updated

and changed as needed.

Junior high school: Originally

conceived to bridge the gap

between elementary and high

school, this is more commonly re-

ferred to as “middle school,” and

comprises grades roughly from

6th through 8th (sometimes 7th

through 9th or 7th and 8th).

LEA: See “Local education agen-

cy.”

Least restrictive environ-

ment (LRE): The educational

placement for students with dis-

abilities that is as close to the

regular classroom as feasible.

Required by the federal IDEA law,

LRE means that students with dis-

abilities should be educated with

children who are nondisabled,

and that removal from the regular

education environment should oc-

cur only if the nature or severity

of the disabilities is such that edu-

cation in regular classes with the

use of supplementary aids and

services cannot be satisfactorily

achieved.

Local education agency

(LEA): A local school system

that is overseen by a local board

of education. More commonly re-

ferred to as a “school district.”

Local wellness policy: Over-

seen and monitored by the U.S.

Depar tment of Agriculture’s

Food and Nutrition Service, all

districts par ticipating in the Na-

tional School Lunch Program are

required to have a local wellness

policy that meets specific criteria

related to nutrition and physical

activity. (www.fns.usda.gov/tn/

Healthy/wellnesspolicy.html)

Magnet schools: Schools with

strong emphasis in a par ticular

subject area (e.g., music, science,

drama, math). In some districts

students may be selected for

admission to a magnet school

through an application process

rather than being assigned based

on residence.

Mainstreaming: The practice of

placing students with disabilities

into regular classrooms. Also re-

ferred to as “inclusion.”

Middle school: Often used in-

terchangeably with junior high

school, this refers to middle

grades between lower elementary

and high school, typically encom-

passing grades 6 through 8.

NAEP: See “National Assessment

of Education Progress.”

National Assessment of Edu-

cation Progress (NAEP): A

national testing program gov-

erned by the National Assess-

ment Governing Board as a con-

gressionally authorized project of

the National Center for Education

Statistics of the U.S. Depar tment

of Education. It is often referred

to as the “Nation’s Repor t Card.”

Since 1969, NAEP tests have

been administered periodically

in reading, math, science, writ-

ing, history, and geography. The

primary NAEP assessment allows

for regional and state-by-state

comparisons of the reading and

mathematics attainment of 4th

and 8th grade students. (http://

nces.ed.gov/nationsrepor tcard/)

National School Lunch Pro-

gram: The National School Lunch

Program is a federally assisted

meal program operating in over

100,000 public and nonprofit pri-

vate schools and residential child-

care institutions. It provided nutri-

tionally balanced, low-cost or free

lunches to more than 31 million

children each school day in 2011.

(www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/

AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet )

No Child Left Behind Act: An-

other name for the 2001 reau-

thorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Office of Civil Rights (OCR):

Office within the U.S. Depar tment

of Education that oversees civil

rights laws, researching and ad-

judicating cases when necessary.

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/of-

fices/list/ocr/index.html)

Parochial school: A private

school that is associated with a

church or other religious institu-

tion and not suppor ted with pub-

lic funds. Parochial schools are,

however, eligible to receive ser-

vices provided to public schools

with federal funds.

PBIS: see “Positive behavioral

interventions and suppor ts.”

Physical education: A sequen-

tial set of lessons and experienc-

es to teach students knowledge,

skills, and abilities to practice

physical activities safely through-

out their lives.

Policy: A rule or guideline formu-

lated or adopted by an organiza-

tion that must be adhered to by

all persons or organization under

the jurisdiction of that entity. A

policy may be formal or informal,

and can direct practice within the

education sector.

Positive behavioral interven-

tions and supports (PBIS):

Also referred to as “School-Wide

Positive Behavioral Interven-

tions and Suppor ts,” PBIS is a

decision-making framework and

school infrastructure that guides

selection, integration, and imple-

mentation of the best evidence-

based academic and behavioral

practices for improving impor tant

academic and behavior outcomes

for all students. The U.S. Depar t-

ment of Education’s Office of

Special Education and Rehabilita-

tive Services suppor ts a technical

assistance center for PBIS imple-

mentation. (www.pbis.org/)

Program: A defined course of

action designed to accomplish a

specified end. In school setting,

programs provide additional ex-

posure to cer tain issues or op-

por tunities for enrichment and

development for students.

Public school: A school that

receives public funding for opera-

tions, open to all students in a de-

fined geographic area.

Private school: A school that

operates outside the structure

of the public school system, often

requiring tuition from students for

attendance. Private schools may

have a selection process for stu-

dent admissions.

Promise Neighborhoods: A

U.S. Depar tment of Education-

funded program that seeks to sig-

nificantly improve the educational

and developmental outcomes of

children and youth in some of the

most distressed communities. The

program seeks to transform those

communities by ensuring access

to high-quality schools and strong

systems of family and community

suppor t that help young people

to attain an excellent education

and successfully transition to col-

lege and a career. (http://www2.

ed.gov/programs/promiseneigh-

borhoods/index.html)

Parent Teacher Association

(PTA): An organization of par-

ents in a school who organize

projects, raise funds, or otherwise

suppor t the school that is affili-

ated with the National PTA. (www.

pta.org)

Parent Teacher Organiza-

tion (PTO): An organization of

parents in a school who organize

projects, raise funds, or other-

wise suppor t the school that is

not affiliated with a national or-

ganization. This type of group is

sometimes also called a Home

School Association or other simi-

lar names.

RTI: See “Response to interven-

tion.”

Race to the Top: A U.S. Depar t-

ment of Education program au-

thorized as par t of the American

Reinvestment and Recovery Act,

it provided $4.35 billion for the

Race to the Top Fund. This com-

petitive grant program eventually

awarded grants to 12 states. The

grants were intended to advance

state reforms in four core educa-

tion reform areas: 1) adopting

standards and assessments that

prepare students to succeed in

college and the workplace and to

compete in the global economy; 2)

building data systems that mea-

sure student growth and success

and inform teachers and princi-

pals about how they can improve

instruction; 3) recruiting, devel-

oping, rewarding, and retaining

effective teachers and principals,

especially where they are needed

most; and 4) turning around our

lowest-achieving schools. Later

versions of the Race to the Top

program are focusing on improv-

ing state systems for early learn-

ing and advancing reforms at

the district level. (http://www2.

ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/

index.html)

Response to intervention

(RTI): A framework and struc-

ture, mostly used in the special

education setting, focused on

changing the way schools sup-

por t students with learning and

behavior problems by system-

atically delivering a personalized

range of interventions based on

the extent of student needs.

School choice: Any policy that

allows children to attend schools

outside their local district bound-

aries (or to different schools

within a district outside students’

local neighborhood). Some choice

programs are restricted to public

schools (including char ter, mag-

net, and traditional schools),

while others focus on choices

among public and private/paro-

chial schools.

School district: A defined geo-

graphic area that organizes K-12

schools serving students in that

area.

School-based health cen-

ter: A health facility located at

a school site that has person-

nel who can address a range of

health issues and provide clinical

services. (www.sbh4all.org/site/c.

ckLQKbOVLkK6E/b.7453519/k.

BEF2/Home.htm)

School improvement plan: A

document developed by a school

and approved by the local educa-

tion agency to serve as a blueprint

for guiding the school’s continu-

ous improvement and progress

toward identified student achieve-

ment objectives and targets.

School resource officer

(SRO): A law enforcement officer

placed in a school to protect stu-

dents and staff and to serve as a

resource to students and staff on

a variety of legal issues, includ-

ing the investigation of crimes or

threats.

SEA: See “State education

agency.”

Secondary school: Another

term for schools that comprise

grades above the elementary

level. Sometimes referred to as

a “high school,” which includes

grades roughly 9th through 12th,

the term often also includes mid-

dle grades schools.

Special education: This broad

term describes the range of edu-

cational and supplemental ser-

vices provided to students with

disabilities who need individual-

ized plans and specific services

to help them realize their full aca-

demic, social, and developmental

potential. (http://www2.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/osers/osep/in-

dex.html)

Special needs student: A stu-

dent who, because of physical,

developmental, behavioral, or

emotional disabilities, requires

special instructional assistance.

SRO: See “School resource

officer.”

State Board of Education:

The primary policymaking body

for education at the state level,

generally composed of individu-

als appointed by the governor

or elected by citizens (or some-

times a combination of the two).

While specific authorities differ

across states, the state board

of education typically sets aca-

demic standards and graduation

requirements, develops the state

assessment and accountability

system, sets teacher and admin-

istrator licensure requirements,

and generally oversees public

education in the state.

State education agency

(SEA): The state agency that

has responsibility for the super-

vision of public elementary and

secondary schools. The official

name within a state may often be

the “State Depar tment of Educa-

tion” or the “State Office of Public

Instruction.”

State Improvement Grants

(SIG): A U.S. Depar tment of

Education program that provides

grants to SEAs, which then make

sub-grants to LEAs to substan-

tially raise student achievement in

their lowest-performing schools.

(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/

sif/index.html)

State academic standards:

A set of academic benchmarks

that students must meet to dem-

onstrate proficiency in a specific

content area.

STEM: Refers to science, tech-

nology, engineering and math-

ematics education.

Supplemental educational

services (SES): Additional aca-

demic instruction designed to in-

crease the academic achievement

of students in schools that have

not met state targets for annually

increasing student achievement

for three years or more.

Title I: A U.S. Depar tment of

Education formula grant, known

as the “Education for the Dis-

advantaged—Grants to Local

Educational Agencies, Improving

the Academic Achievement of the

Disadvantaged.” Title I provides

funds to SEAs, which in turn pro-

vide funds to districts and schools

with demonstrated financial need.

(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/

titleipar ta/index.html)

Title IX: Par t of the federal edu-

cation law that prohibits any en-

tity receiving funds from the U.S.

Depar tment of Education from

discriminating on the basis of sex,

including sexual harassment; the

failure to provide equal oppor tu-

nity in athletics; discrimination in

a school’s science, technology,

engineering, and math (STEM)

courses and programs; and dis-

crimination based on pregnancy.

( h t t p : / / w w w 2 . e d . go v / p o l i c y /

rights/guid/ocr/sexoverview.html)

Zero Tolerance: Policies that

mandate predetermined conse-

quences or punishments for a

specific offense regardless of the

circumstances surrounding it.

Principal: The key decision-maker and top official at every

school. This person supervises the school’s instructional pro-

gram, maintains order and discipline; enforces federal, state,

and district rules, policies, and laws; evaluates and suppor ts

teachers; and represents the school to parents and the com-

munity. Some schools have one or more assistant principals.

Principals are the gatekeepers of a school and have the author-

ity and responsibility to make decisions about most aspects of

the school’s operation and day-to-day management

Teachers and instructional staff: Those who oversee the

day-to-day operations of a classroom or group of students, de-

livering the curriculum and helping students work toward estab-

lished state standards. Teachers often know students best in the

learning environment, and can promote healthy behaviors and

positive social interactions. They can also be the first to detect

when something is not right with a student.

School health program coordinator: A person designated

to assist in the implementation and coordination of school health

policies and programs by ensuring that the instruction and

services provided through various components of the school

health program are mutually reinforcing and present consistent

messages. The coordinator also facilitates collaboration among

school health program personnel and between them and other

school staff, among other duties. This person may have another

job in the school and serve as the designated coordinator in

addition to that job.

School health council (also known as a school health

advisory council, a SHAC, or a school health team): This

body assists the principal with the oversight, management, plan-

ning, and evaluation of school health programs and policies.

The council often includes parents and community representa-

tives. It may be an advisory body or it might have some desig-

nated authority to enhance program coordination among staff

members working on different components of the school health

program.

Resource teacher: A person responsible for working with stu-

dents who need additional suppor t or attention. These teachers

might help students in self-contained classrooms, in resource

settings where students come for a por tion of the school day, or

appendix b /
school personnel
who support
students’ health
and development

in regular classrooms with a mix

of students.

Paraprofessional and class-

room aide: A person responsible

for assisting a teacher in routine

class activities, sometimes work-

ing with small groups of students

on par ticular projects or even

performing specialized medical

procedures in special-education

settings. Aides might be assigned

to work in specific classrooms or

with specific students.

School nurse: This credentialed

professional provides or

supervises the management

of a range of health services

and responsibilities routinely

provided on school campuses.

The school nurse is often

responsible for providing first

aid and emergency services;

monitoring and managing chronic

health conditions and health

outcomes; dispensing medication

and administering nursing

procedures, par ticularly for

students with disabilities or special

health care needs; conducting

health screenings and assessing

student health status; maintaining

confidential health records of

students and sometimes staff

members; identifying educational

difficulties that might have

underlying health causes and

arranging for referrals; case

managing students with complex

health needs, such as interacting

with physicians and families;

conducting classroom health

education lessons, as requested;

helping schools and districts

develop and implement policies

and procedures to promote and

ensure health and safety; and

coordinating with community

agencies to identify and provide

programs that meet the physical

and mental health needs of

students and families.

In related work, health aides are

professionals without nursing

cer tification who provide health

services and are given some re-

sponsibility for managing medica-

tions and student records.

School health center staff:

If a school has a school-based

health center, these profession-

als (generally nurse practitioners

and physicians’ assistants) staff

the center at a location on school

grounds or nearby.

School physician: Some school

districts employ a par t- or full-

time physician who provides

health services to students and/

or oversees or coordinates the

health of students in the district.

Qualified mental health pro-

fessional: These professionals

are licensed and credentialed or

cer tified and oversee the mental

health needs of students. They

include:

School social worker: Du-

ties for these individuals include

working with teams of school

personnel, helping children and

youth with physical or emotional

problems, as well as working with

those who face child abuse, ne-

glect, domestic violence, pover ty,

and other problems. Sometimes

this work entails one-on-one work

with a child, but it also may include

coordinating services, facilitating

communication between parents

and school staff, and providing a

variety of services to students in

special education.

School psychologist: Trained

in mental health, child develop-

ment, learning, behavior, and

motivation, this person performs

duties related to mental health

promotion, intervention, and

education. A key responsibility is

assessment of academic skills,

learning aptitudes, personality

and emotional development, so-

cial skills, and eligibility for special

education services.

School counselor: Provides

services to students ranging

from academic support, college

counseling, and career guidance

to personal counseling. A school

counselor might also provide peri-

odic classroom lessons on issues

such as conflict resolution, peer

mediation, bullying prevention, and

promoting diversity and tolerance.

Specialty therapists: These

licensed and credentialed/cer ti-

fied professionals provide specific

services to students based on

their individual needs, often as

par t of their special education

services. They include:

Speech and language thera-

pists or speech and language

pathologists: Responsibilities

include working with students on

speech and language cognition

and behaviors to develop and

strengthen oral and aural skills.

Occupational therapists:

These individuals work with

students to develop and prac-

tice daily living and work skills,

mostly focused on motor skills

and coordination.

Physical therapists: These

staff members work with students

on issues related to motor skills

or physical challenges that im-

pede learning.

School food service staff:

Personnel include food service

managers and line workers. Food

service managers plan meals and

purchase supplies, while food

service workers prepare and

serve food, guided by the U.S.

Depar tment of Agriculture’s reg-

ulations. They also par ticipate in

wellness councils and sometimes

provide classroom instruction on

nutrition concepts.

/department of education
The Depar tment of Education (ED) has responsibility and over-

sight of many education programs, many of which have been

discussed in this document. Additionally, ED provides funds to in-

crease the number of K-12 students who meet their state stan-

dards for physical education through the Carol M. White Physi-

cal Education Program (PEP) (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/

whitephysed/index.html); establish or expand elementary and

secondary school counseling programs through the Elementary

and Secondary School Counseling Program (www2.ed.gov/pro-

grams/elseccounseling/index.html); as well as providing funds

through Project SERV for shor t- and long-term education-re-

lated services for LEAs and institutions of higher education to

help them recover from a violent or traumatic event in which

the learning environment has been disrupted. (www2.ed.gov/

programs/dvppserv/index.html)

/department of agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS): FNS works to end hunger

and obesity through 15 federal nutrition assistance programs,

including school meals programs, WIC, and the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). FNS also features excel-

lent nutrition education resources through its Team Nutrition

program and information for schools on My Plate (dietary guide-

lines). (www.fns.usda.gov)

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA): Within the U.S.

Depar tment of Agriculture (USDA), NIFA is the federal par tner

in the U.S. Cooperative Extension System. NIFA provides federal

funding to the system and, through program leadership, helps

the system identify and address current issues and problems.

Cooperative Extension coordinates the 4-H youth development

program, whose mission is to “engage youth to reach their full-

est potential while advancing the field of youth development.”

The name 4-H represents four personal development areas of

focus for the organization: head, hear t, hands, and health. 4-H

suppor ts approximately 90,000 clubs. (www.4-h.org)

appendix c /
federal government
programs that
support school
health and safety

/ department of health and
human services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) offer a variety of resources focused on en-

hancing child and youth health, as well as for school

health programming. They provide evidence-based

guidelines (such as on healthy eating and physical

activity in schools, www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/npao/

strategies.htm), tools for schools to assess their

school health policies and practices (School Health

Index, www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/shi/index.htm),

as well as health education and physical education

curriculum (www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/HECAT/index.

htm and www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/pecat/index.htm,

respectively), surveillance tools and data (www.cdc.

gov/healthyyouth/data/index.htm), and technical as-

sistance. CDC’s Coordinated School Health Program

has guided school health effor ts for decades (www.

cdc.gov/healthyyouth/cshp/index.htm). CDC also

funds state and local health projects in a range of

areas, many of which feature school-based interven-

tions, and funds some state health depar tments to

provide programming and policy suppor t for school

health. (General information, www.cdc.gov; for

school health issues specifically, see www.cdc.gov/

healthyyouth.)

Substance and Mental Health

Services Administration

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA) leads public health ef-

for ts to advance the behavioral health of the nation,

with a mission of reducing the impact of substance

abuse and mental illness on America’s communities.

SAMHSA provides funding to LEAs through the Safe

Schools, Healthy Students program (www.sshs.sam-

hsa.gov/), as well as suppor ting initiatives to reduce

suicide among youth (www.samhsa.gov/matrix2/

matrix_suicide.aspx). (General information, www.

samhsa.gov)

Health Resources and

Services Administration

HRSA provides leadership, in par tnership with key

stakeholders, to improve the physical and mental

health, safety, and well-being of the maternal and

child health population, which includes all of the

nation’s women, infants, children, adolescents, and

their families, including fathers and children with

special health care needs. HRSA provides funding

for school health professionals, including grants to

improve access to oral health services for children

in schools. HRSA also funds a resource for bullying

prevention (www.stopbullyingnow.org). (General in-

formation, www.hrsa.gov)

/ environmental protection agency
EPA is charged with protecting environmental re-

sources in the United States and promoting envi-

ronmental stewardship at home, at school and work,

and in the community. EPA provides many resources

for schools, including for classroom instruction at

www.epa.gov/schools/. The agency also produced

Voluntary Guidelines for States: Development and

Implementation of a School Environmental Health

Program (www.epa.gov/sc3/ehguidelines/index.

html). (General information, www.epa.gov/).

/ department of justice
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) provides national leader-

ship, coordination, and resources to prevent and

respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization.

OJJDP suppor ts states and communities in their ef-

for ts to develop and implement effective prevention

and intervention programs. (www.ojjdp.gov)

/department of the interior
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)/ Bureau of Indian

Education (BIE) provides services (directly through

contracts, grants, or compacts) to approximately

1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. The

mission of the BIE is “to provide quality education

oppor tunities from early childhood through life in

accordance with a tribe’s needs for cultural and eco-

nomic wellbeing, in keeping with the wide diversity

of Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages as distinct

cultural and governmental entities.” (www.bia.gov)

/department of transportation
The U.S. Depar tment of Transpor tation coordinates

with other federal par tners to promote safe trans-

por t to and from school, most notably through its

Safe Routes to Schools Program. (www.fhwa.dot.

gov/environment/safe_routes_to_school/).

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is an affiliate of

the AFL-CIO. The AFT represents pre-K through 12th-grade

teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related person-

nel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal,

state, and local government employees; and nurses and other

healthcare professionals. In addition, the AFT represents ap-

proximately 80,000 early childhood educators and nearly

250,000 retiree members. (www.aft.org)

Action for Healthy Kids (AFHK) educates school leaders,

public health officials, parents, students, and other members

of their network to increase their knowledge of nutrition and

physical activity best practices for schools, as well as working to

mobilize parents and volunteers to get programs that promote

healthy lifestyles and wellness policies in schools. The organiza-

tion also provides schools with evidence-based programs and

services, funding, and resources so schools can implement well-

ness practices. (www.actionforhealthykids.org/)

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is an organization

of 60,000 pediatricians committed to optimal physical, mental,

and social health, and well-being for all infants, children, adoles-

cents, and young adults. (/www.aap.org)

American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Rec-

reation, and Dance (AAHPERD) is the largest organization

of professionals involved in physical education, physical activity,

dance, school health, and spor t. Its mission is to advance pro-

fessional practice and promote research related to health and

physical education, physical activity, dance, and spor t by provid-

ing its members with a comprehensive and coordinated array of

resources, suppor t, and programs to help practitioners improve

their skills to fur ther the health and well-being of the American

public. (www.aahperd.org/)

American School Counselor Association (ASCA) suppor ts

school counselors’ effor ts to help students focus on academic,

personal/social, and career development so they achieve suc-

cess in school and are prepared to lead fulfilling lives as respon-

sible members of society. (schoolcounselor.org/)

American School Health Association (ASHA) is a multidis-

ciplinary organization of administrators, counselors, dentists,

appendix d /
non-governmental
organizations that
support school health
and safety

health educators, physical educa-

tors, school nurses, and school

physicians that offers help and

advice on quality school health

programs. (www.ashaweb.org)

ASCD is a membership organi-

zation that develops programs,

products, and services essential

to the way educators learn, teach,

and lead. Its Healthy Schools

Community project is a worldwide

effor t to promote the integration

of health and learning and the

benefits of school-community

collaboration (www.ascd.org/pro-

grams/healthy-school-communi-

ties.aspx) and ASCD’s Whole Child

project helps educators move

from a vision about educating the

whole child to sustainable, col-

laborative action (www.ascd.org/

whole-child.aspx). (General infor-

mation, www.ascd.org)

The Center for Health and

Health Care in Schools

(CHHCS) is a policy, resource, and

technical assistance center whose

goal is to promote children’s health

and school success by advanc-

ing school connected programs,

policies and systems-connected

programs, policies and systems.

(www.healthinschools.org/)

Center for School Mental

Health provides resources, re-

search, and technical assistance

for educators and communities to

help them enhance mental health

services in schools. (http://csmh.

umaryland.edu/)

Council of Chief State School

Officers is a national, nonpar-

tisan membership organization

representing state-level educa-

tion leaders. (www.ccsso.org)

Food Allergy Research and

Education (FARE) works on

behalf of the 15 million Ameri-

cans with food allergies, in-

cluding all those at risk for life-

threatening anaphylaxis. (www.

foodallergy.org/)

National Association of

Chronic Disease Directors

(NACDD) members include over

3,000 specialized chronic disease

practitioners working in public

health depar tments across all 50

States and U.S. jurisdictions to

prevent and control chronic dis-

ease. The organization’s School

Health Project helps chronic

disease directors and their staff

make informed decisions about

a variety of school health issues.

(www.chronicdisease.org/)

National Association of State

Boards of Education (NAS-

BE)represents state boards of

education across the country

and provides its members with

a wide range of resources, pro-

fessional learning oppor tunities,

and in-state assistance. NASBE

offers resources on issues re-

lated to school health through

the organization’s Center for Safe

and Healthy Schools (www.nasbe.

org/project/center-for-safe-and-

healthy-schools/), including the

NASBE State School Health Pol-

icy Database (www.nasbe.org/

healthy_schools/hs/index.php)

and its series of school health

policy guides, Fit, Healthy, and

Ready to Learn (www.nasbe.org/

fhr tl).

National Association of

School Nurses (NASN) is a na-

tional membership organization,

NASN represents school nurses

and advances the specialty prac-

tice of school nursing to improve

the health and academic success

of all students. (www.nasn.org/

Home)

National Association of

School Psychologists (NASP)

empowers school psychologists

by advancing effective practices

to improve students’ learning, be-

havior, and mental health. (www.

nasponline.org/)

National Education Asso-

ciation represents over 3 mil-

lion members, including school

faculty, staff, and personnel from

pre-school through university

graduate programs committed to

advancing the cause of public ed-

ucation. NEA’s Health Information

Network maintains a regularly

updated website of school health

information and resources for

teachers and other school per-

sonnel (www.neahin.org/). (Gen-

eral information, www.nea.org)

National School Boards As-

sociation (NSBA) is a nonprofit

organization representing state

associations of school boards

and their more than 90,000 local

school board members through-

out the United States, vir tually all

of whom are elected. These local

officials govern more than 13,600

local school districts serving the

nation’s 50 million public school

students. (www.nsba.org/)

Robert Wood Johnson Foun-

dation (RWJF) is a philanthrop-

ic organization providing funds

for projects focused on improv-

ing health and health care for all

Americans. It focuses on a range

of issues, including childhood

obesity and public health, and

many of its funded projects fea-

ture school-based interventions.

(www.rwjf.org)

School-Based Health Alli-

ance (formerly the National

Assembly on School-Based

Health Care) is the national

voice for school-based health

centers. (www.sbh4all.org)

AASA, the School Superin-

tendents Association, is the

professional organization for

more than 13,000 education

leaders in the United States and

throughout the world. AASA mem-

bers range from chief executive

officers, superintendents, and

senior level school administrators

to cabinet members, professors,

and aspiring school system lead-

ers. (www.aasa.org/)

UCLA Center for Mental Health

in Schools provides technical as-

sistance and resources to schools

and districts that want to enhance

their mental health and psychoso-

cial suppor t services for students.

(http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/#)

WellSAT (Wellness School

Assessment Tool) provides a

standard method for the quan-

titative assessment of school

wellness policies. The tool offers

a consistent and reliable means

of assessing the comprehen-

siveness and strength of school

wellness policies within or among

states. It was developed by re-

searchers at Yale’s Rudd Center

for Food Policy and Obesity. (www.

wellsat.org/)

1U.S. Depar tment of Education, National Center for Education Statis-

tics, 2011-2012 School and Staffing Survey, (August 2013), http://

nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/index.asp.

2U.S. Depar tment of Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2020,

(Washington, DC: USDHHS, 2010), www.healthypeople.gov/2020/de-

fault.aspx; U.S. Depar tment of Health and Human Services, The Com-

munity Guide to Preventive Services, www.thecommunityguide.org/

index.html.

3U.S. Depar tment of Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2020.

4The Rober t Wood Johnson Foundation, “Commission to Build a Health-

ier America,” Learning and Health, Issue Brief 6, Education and Health

(Princeton, NJ: The Rober t Wood Johnson Foundation, 2009), www.

commissiononhealth.org/.

5J.S. Schiller, J.W. Lucas, and J.A. Peregoy, “Summary Health Statistics

for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2011,” Vital Health

Stat 10, no. 256 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics,

2012), www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_256 .

6A.M. Klem and J.P. Connell, “Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher

Suppor t to Student Engagement and Achievement,” Journal of School

Health 74 (2004): 262–273; L.M. Youngblade, C. Theokas, J. Schulen-

berg, L. Curry, I-C. Huang, and M. Novak, “Risk and Promotive Factors

in Families, Schools, and Communities: A Contextual Model of Posi-

tive Youth Development in Adolescence,” Pediatrics 119, Supplement

1 (February 1, 2007): S47 -S53; V. Battistich, D. Solomon, M. Watson,

and E. Schaps, “Caring School Communities,” Educational Psychologist

32, no. 3 (1997): 137–151; and M.D. Resnick, L.J. Harris, and R.W.

Blum, “The Impact of Caring and Connectedness on Adolescent Health

and Well-Being,” Journal of Pediatric Child Health 29, no. Supplement

1 (1993): S3-S9.

7P.C. Scales, P.L. Benson, E.C. Roehlkepar tain, J. Sesma, and M. van

Dulmen, “The Role of Developmental Assets in Predicting Academic

Achievement: A Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Adolescence 29, no. 5

(Oct 2006): 691-708.

8Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The Association between

School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Aca-

demic Performance (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Pre-

vention, 2010).

9B.J. Bradley and A.C. Green, “Do Health and Education Agencies in the
64

endnotes

United States Share Responsibility for Academic Achieve-

ment and Health? A Review of 25 Years of Evidence about

the Relationship of Adolescents’ Academic Achievement

and Health Behaviors,” Journal of Adolescent Health 52

(2013): 522-532.

10Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Youth Risk

Behavior Survey – United States, 2011,” Morbidity and

Mor tality Weekly Repor t 61, no. SS-4 (2012): 1-168,

www.cdc.gov/MMWR/PDF/SS/SS6104.PDF.

11S. L. Jackson et al., “Impact of Poor Oral Health on

Children’s School Attendance and Performance,” Ameri-

can Journal of Public Health 101 (2011): 1900–06; U.S.

Depar tment of Health and Human Services, “Healthy

People 2020”; K. Holt, K. Kraft, “Oral Health and Learn-

ing” (Rockville, MD: Health Resources and Services Ad-

ministration, 2003), www.ask.hrsa.gov/detail_materials.

cfm?ProdID=359; H.C. Gift, S.T. Reisine, D.C. Larach, “The

Social Impact of Dental Problems and Visits,” American

Journal of Public Health 82, no. 12 (1992): 1663 – 68.

12S. Moonie, D. Sterling, L. Figgs, and M. Castro, “Asthma

Status and Severity Affects Missed School Days,” Journal

of School Health 76, no. 1 (2006): 18-24.

13L.J. Akinbami, J.E. Moorman, and X. Liu, “Asthma Preva-

lence, Health Care Use, and Mor tality: United States,

2005–2009,” National Health Statistics Repor ts, no.

32 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics,

2011).

14Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Youth Risk

Behavior Survey – United States, 2011.”

15Austin Independent School District, Student Substance

Use and Safety Surveys, 2010-2012, www.centex-com-

munitydashboards.org/socially-and-emotionally-healthy-

and-safe/youth-who-are-sad-or-depressed.php.

16M. Belot, J. James, “Healthy School Meals and Education-

al Outcomes,” Journal of Health Economics, 30 (2011):

489–504; C. Basch, “Breakfast and Achievement Gap

Among Urban Minority Youth,” Journal of School Health

81, no. 10 (2011): 635–40; H. Taras, “Nutrition and Stu-

dent Performance at School,” Journal of School Health

75, no. 6 (2005): 199–213; F. Bellisle, “Effects of Diet

on Behaviour and Cognition in Children,” British Journal

of Nutrition 92, Supplement 2 (2004): S227–S232; R.E.

Kleinman, S. Hall, H. Green, D. Korzec-Ramirez, K. Patton,

M.E. Pagano, and J.M. Murphy, “Diet, Breakfast, Academic

Performance in Children,” Annals of Nutrition and Me-

tabolism 46, Supplement 1 (2002): 24–30; J.M. Murphy,

M.E. Pagano ME, J. Nachmani, P. Sperling, S. Kane, and

R.E. Kleinman, “The Relationship of School Breakfast to

Psychosocial and Academic Functioning,” Archives of Pe-

diatric and Adolescent Medicine 152 (1998): 899–907.

17Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Youth Risk

Behavior Survey – United States, 2011.”

18S. Robers, J. Kemp, and J. Truman, Indicators of School

Crime and Safety: 2012 (NCES 2013-036/ NCJ 241446)

(Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,

U.S. Depar tment of Education, and Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Depar tment of

Justice, 2013).

19J.G. Lear, “Children’s Health and Children’s Schools: A

Collaborative Approach to Strengthening Children’s Well-

Being,” School Health Service and Programs; Julia Gra-

ham Lear, Stephen Isaacs, and James Knickman [editors];

foreword by Risa Lavizzo-Mourey. – 1st ed. The Rober t

Wood Johnson Foundation’s Series on Health Policy (San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint, 2006).

20U.S. Depar tment of Education, Back to School Statistics

(Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National

Center for Education Statistics, 2013), http://nces.ed.gov/

fastfacts/display.asp?id=372.

21S.Q. Cornman, Revenues and Expenditures for Public

Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2010–

11 (Fiscal Year 2011), no. 342, (Washington, DC: U.S. De-

par tment of Education, Institute for Education Sciences,

National Center for Education Statistics, 2013), http://

nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

22U.S. Depar tment of Education, Back to School Statistics.

23Cornman, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elemen-

tary and Secondary Education: School Year 2010–11.

24The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides

that “powers not delegated to the United States by the

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re-

served to the States respectively, or to the people.”

25National Alliance for Public Char ter Schools Dashboard,

http://dashboard.publicchar ters.org/dashboard/home.

26U.S. Depar tment of Education, Digest of Education Sta-

tistics: 2011 (Washington, DC: U.S. Depar tment of Edu-

cation, Institute for Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics, 2012), http://nces.ed.gov/pro-

grams/digest/.

27ProximityOne, “School Districts by State, 1952-2012,”

http://proximityone.com/sdstate.htm#info; U. Bloser, Size

Matters: A Look at School-District Consolidation (Washing-

ton, DC: Center for American Progress, 2013).

28D.M. Sadker and K. Zittleman, “What Makes a School Ef-

fective?” (2010), www.education.com/reference/ar ticle/

Ref_What_Makes_School/, excerpted from D.M. Sadker

and K. Zittleman, Teachers, Schools, and Society: A Brief

Introduction to Education (New York, New York: McGraw-

Hill Publishers, 2006); L.W. Lezotte, Correlates of Effec-

tive Schools: The First and Second Generation, (Okemos,

MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd., 1991), www.effective-

schools.com/resources; J. Car ter and W.B. Michael, “The

Development and Validation of an Inventory of Effective

School Function,” Educational and Psychological Mea-

surement 55, no. 5 (October 2995): 811-17; F.M. New-

mann, H.M. Marks, and A. Gamoran, “Authentic Pedago-

gy: Standards That Boost Student Performance,” Issues

in Restructuring Schools 8 (1995), www.wcer.wisc.edu/

archive/cors/Issues_in_Restructuring_Schools/ISSUES_

NO_8_SPRING_1995 ; and L.M. Blum, Best Practices

for Effective Schools (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Urban

Health Institute, date unknown), http://urbanhealth.jhu.

edu/media/best_practices/effective_schools .

29The Wallace Foundation, The School Principal as Leader:

Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and Learning (New

York: The Wallace Foundation, 2013).

30The Health Information Por tability and Accountability Act

is Pub.L. 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936, enacted August 21,

1996.

31U.S. Depar tments of Education and Health and Hu-

man Services, Joint Guidance on the Application of the

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and

the Health Insurance Por tability and Accountability Act

of 1996 (HIPAA) to Student Health Records (Washing-

ton, DC: U.S. Depar tments of Education and Health and

Human Services, November 2008), www.hhs.gov/ocr/

privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/hipaaferpa-

jointguide .

2121 Crystal Drive Suite #350
Arlington, VA 22202
P 703.684.4000 • F 703.836.2313
www.nasbe.org

The National Association of State Boards of Education is a nonprofit, private association that represents state and territorial boards of
education. Our principal objectives are to strengthen state leadership in education policymaking; promote excellence in the education
of all students; advocate equality of access to educational oppor tunity; and assure responsible lay governance of public education.

Strategies and Legal Issues in Implementing IEPs
in Compliance with IDEA

by
Jose L. Martín, Attorney at Law

Richards Lindsay & Martín, L.L.P.
13091 Pond Springs Road, Suite 300

Austin, Texas 78729
jose@rlmedlaw.com

The Legal Duty to Implement IEPs

• Statutory Provision—The IDEA requires that IDEA regulations require that
“[a]t the beginning of each school year, each local educational agency, State
educational agency, or other State agency, as the case may be, shall have in effect,
for each child with a disability in the agency’s jurisdiction, an individualized
education program….” 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(2)(A).

• Main Regulatory Provision—IDEA regulations require that “as soon as
possible following development of the IEP, special education and related services
are made available to the child in accordance with the child’s IEP.” 34 C.F.R.
§300.323(c).

• Availability to teachers—The child’s IEP must be “accessible” to each
teacher, related services provider, or any other service provider responsible for
its implementation. 34 C.F.R. §300.323(d)(1).

A failure to show that teachers received copies of the IEP they were
responsible for implementing can be fatal to a school’s defense of a legal
action claiming a failure to implement. In a Montana case, there was no
evidence that a school implemented a student’s numerous
accommodations, or that it provided the IEP to the responsible teachers.
Thus, there was a finding of failure to implement the IEP. In re Student
with a Disability, 111 LRP 8947 (SEA Montana 2011).

• Notification to teachers of their role—Schools must ensure that every
staffperson responsible for implementing the IEP is “informed of his or her
specific responsibilities related to implementing the child’s IEP; and the specific
accommodations, modifications, or supports that must be provided for the child
in accordance with the IEP.” 34 C.F.R. §300.323(d)(2).

• When does a failure to implement the IEP amount to a denial of FAPE?—While
the regulation appears to require that IEP services be implemented as set forth in
the IEP document, caselaw has established that the IEP does not have to be
implemented perfectly in order for the school to avoid liability. A number of
circuit courts of appeal have taken the position that only a material failure to
implement the IEP or a failure to implement a significant or essential

component of the IEP will amount to an actual denial of FAPE.

In Gillette v. Fairland Bd. of Educ., 725 F.Supp. 343 (S.D.Ohio 1989), a
District Court held that a failure to implement portions of an IEP did not
constitute a denial of FAPE where “significant provisions” of the IEP were
implemented properly. The Fifth Circuit cited that case with approval in
the first such case to reach a court of appeal, Houston Independent Sch.
Dist. v. Bobby R., 31 IDELR 185 (5th Cir. 2000), where a students speech
therapy was not provided for some months (compensatory services were
later provided) and there was also a failure to provide some AP services
(parent declined compensatory services). The Court held that the
applicable legal standard was the following:

“[W]e conclude that to prevail on a claim under the IDEA, a party
challenging the implementation of an IEP must show more than a de
minimis failure to implement all elements of that IEP, and, instead, must
demonstrate that the school board or other authorities failed to implement
substantial or significant provisions of the IEP. This approach affords local
agencies some flexibility in implementing IEP’s, but it still holds those
agencies accountable for material failures and for providing the disabled
child a meaningful educational benefit.”

Several circuit courts followed the lead of Bobby R. and adopted the Fifth
Circuit’s standard. See Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 38 IDELR 61 (8th
Cir. 2003)(“We cannot conclude that an IEP is reasonably calculated to
provide a free appropriate public education if there is evidence that the
school actually failed to implement an essential element of the IEP that
was necessary for the child to receive an educational benefit”); Van Duyn
v. Baker Sch. Dist., 47 IDELR 182 (9th Cir. 2007)(“A material failure to
implement an IEP violates the IDEA…. A material failure occurs when
there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school
provides to a disabled child and [those] required by the child’s IEP.”); A.
P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 55 IDELR 61 (2nd Cir. 2010)(Failure to
provide an aide, as required in IEP, for a period of time did not amount to
a “material failure” to implement the IEP in light of student’s progress);
Sumter County Sch. Dist. 17 v. Heffernan, 56 IDELR 186 (4th Cir.
2011)(“As other courts have recognized, the failure to implement a
material or significant portion of the IEP can amount to a denial of
FAPE”); See also, Van Duyn v. Baker School District: A “Material”
Improvement in Evaluating a School District’s Failure to Implement
Individualized Education Programs, David G. King, NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL
OF LAW & SOCIAL POLICY (Vol. 4, Issue 2, 2009)(“At the circuit level, there is
a growing trend towards requiring that the failure to implement be a
substantive failure before it is cognizable, meaning that the nature of the
failure is evaluated in relation to the student’s IEP and the district’s
implementation”).

Recent Case Example—More recent cases tend to apply the legal analysis in
the federal court cases note above. For example in the case of Santa Fe Ind.

Sch. Dist., 63 IDELR 207 (SEA Texas 2013), a parent’s allegations that the
school did not always notify her of missing assignments on the day they
came due, or consistently implemented preferential seating for the
student, was deemed a de minimus (minor) implementation claim that did
not support a finding of denial of FAPE. The hearing officer instead found
that the parent’s claim was that the accommodations were not
implemented in precisely the manner she wanted. But, the exact manner
of implementing the accommodations was a matter of methodology, and
within the teacher’s discretion. The schools failure, on limited occasions,
to notify the parent on the day missing assignments came due was
harmless, since the teacher provided the student an extra five days to
complete the assignments.

The Educational Benefit Interpretation—Some courts, however, interpret
Bobby R. as ultimately asking whether the IEP implementation failure
deprived the student of a FAPE. Although the analysis has been criticized,
some courts nevertheless look to whether the student received an overall
educational benefit despite a failure to implement the IEP. In Leighty v.
Laurel Sch. Dist., 46 IDELR 214 (W.D.Pa. 2006), the court scrutinized a
parent’s claim that there was a failure to implement the IEP, stating that
“generally speaking, in order to defeat an IDEA-based claim alleging that
it has failed to properly implement an IEP, a school district must
demonstrate that: (1) the failure to implement was not a “complete”
failure; (2) the variance from the special education and related services
specified in the IEP did not deprive the student of a FAPE; and (3) the
provision of special education and related services made meaningful
progress toward the achievement of the specific goals stated in the IEP.”

Thus, to some courts, even if a material portion of the IEP was not
implemented, if the student ultimately received a FAPE despite the lapse,
there is no violation of IDEA. See also Wanham v. Everett Pub. Schs., 50
IDELR 44 (D.Mass. 2008)(holding the Independent Hearing Officer did not
err in “requiring [the student] to show harm where services listed in the
IEP were not delivered”); Burke v. Amherst Sch. Dist., 51 IDELR 220
(D.N.H. 2008)(District’s failure to implement the videotaping objective did
not deprive the student of a FAPE); Falzett v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 44
IDELR 121 (3rd Cir. 2005)(holding that “substantial evidence exists in the
record to support the finding that [the school] provided [the student] with
meaningful educational benefit despite some failures”).

Some courts are more strict—Schools should be aware that a failure to
implement a substantial component of a child’s IEP may be deemed a
denial of FAPE even if the student receives educational benefit despite
such failure. See Manalansan v. Bd. of Educ. of Baltimore City, 35 IDELR
122 (D.Md. 2001)(good faith attempt to implement aide assistance
provision of IEP, where school had difficulty finding and keeping aides,
did not excuse failure to implement a significant component of the IEP).
Similarly, in Turner v. District of Columbia, 61 IDELR 126 (D.D.C. 2013),
the court ruled that a parent does not have to establish that the

implementation failure resulted in harm to the student’s education. Thus,
although there was not significant evidence that the school’s failure to
provide special education instruction for several months caused harm to
the student, the lack of services was a material implementation failure and
thus a denial of FAPE. Specifically, the court looked at the proportion of
special education services that were not implemented in comparison to
what was received, and found that the failure to provide support in
regular classes was complete. “The total lack of special education support
within the general education environment is therefore clearly
problematic.”

Implementation Analysis Under §504

• Office for Civil Rights (OCR) position under §504—In the OCR investigation
of White Deer Ind. Sch. Dist., 38 IDELR 20 (OCR 2002), a school developed a
§504 plan for a student with Tourette’s, ADHD, and obsessive compulsive
disorder. It called for “examinations of reduced length,” among other
accommodations. Some of the student’s teachers did not implement the
accommodation for final exams. OCR found that the student performed well
overall, and the teachers reported that the accommodation was not required. One
worked with the student one-on-one for the test, and gave the student extra time.
An Art teacher reported that the test was simple and required no
accommodation. Another had provided the student with prior information on
the test items instead of reducing its length. OCR stated that “when a district fails
to make a modification that has been deemed necessary by [the section 504
committee],… such failure does not in and of itself constitute a denial of FAPE.”
With analysis similar to that of the Fifth Circuit in the Houston ISD v. Bobby R
case, OCR concludes that the lapse in implementation did not amount to a denial
of FAPE, pointing out the student’s consistent A-B grades over several years.

In another case, a 504 committee included an accommodation of
“modified tests” in a student’s 504 plan. The parent and staff came to
disagreement over the type of test accommodations that were to be
implemented. Archer City Ind. Sch. Dist., 40 IDELR 218 (OCR 2003). Staff
provided extra time, afterclass time, preschool time, and some
opportunities to take tests home and re-take them. Two teachers failed to
provide timely progress reports several times, due to illness and
conference attendance. OCR did not find a violation of §504.

Another district’s 504 plan for a student with ADHD contained an
accommodation requiring teachers to notify his parent when his grade
average in any class fell below 75 by e-mail. Jim Ned Cons. Ind. Sch.
District, 40 IDELR 131 (OCR 2003). The regular policy called for written
deficiency notices to be sent to parents in the middle of grading periods
when grades fall below 70. The school did not implement the
accommodation as stated in the 504 plan, although it implemented all
other accommodations and even went beyond the written plan. The high
school principal reported to OCR that the accommodation in question was

not added because any educator believed it was necessary, but rather only
because the parent insisted on adding it. OCR held that although there
was a failure to implement the plan as written, the student was not denied
a FAPE.

Comments—The three OCR letters above appear to indicate that OCR
analyzes claims of failures to implement 504 plans similarly to federal
courts ruling on failures to implement IEPs in special education. Under
the current IDEA caselaw, failures to implement IEPs do not necessarily
constitute denials of a FAPE. The failure must be in an essential area of the
IEP in order to rise to the degree of denial of FAPE. A key fact common to
the three letters of findings summarized above is that the students did not
perform poorly academically, despite staff’s failure to implement the
plans fully. Certainly, schools should not take these cases to mean that
implementing accommodations, whether from an IEP or a §504 plan, is an
optional requirement. Any failure to implement an accommodation plan
incurs a risk of legal liability on the part of the school. And, if students do
not fare well academically during a period of non-implementation, an
OCR finding of violation of 504 or an adverse IDEA hearing decision is far
more likely.

Miscellaneous Questions and Issues in IEP Implementation

• Can lack of resources excuse a failure to implement the IEP?—The U.S.
Department of Education (USDE) has long held that lack of resources, whether of
staffing, facilities, or finances, is never an excuse for failing to provide the
required IEP services. Letter to Angelo, 213 LRP 9074 (OSEP 1988).

Practical Note—What if a resources situation arises, such as the loss of a
particular provider in an area where there will be difficulty in arranging
for an alternate provider? The only course of action for schools is to make
best efforts to arrange for a new provider. During any period of non-
implementation of a service, it may be advisable to contact the parents in
writing, convene an IEP meeting, explain the situation, and commit to
providing full compensatory services once a provider is found.

• Can staff objections excuse a school’s failure to implement the IEP?—The
USDE has indicated that objections or lack of cooperation from school staff must
be addressed by schools internally, in the same manner as other staff-agency
disagreements. Letter to Fox, 211 IDELR 26 (OSEP 1978). If the issue is not
resolved, and there is a material failure to implement an IEP, the school is
exposed to liability. Even if there is a labor pact or collective bargaining
agreement to the contrary, when an IEP team determines that a child needs a
specific service in order to receive FAPE, it must provide it. Letter to
Anonymous, 17 IDELR 391 (OSERS 1990).

Practical Note—Campus administrators with supervisory capacities over
staffpersons must quickly address staff disagreements with IEP services or

accommodations that are leading to implementation problems. Staff must
be aware that if they fail to implement portions of IEPs for which they are
responsible, they are placing the school at risk of legal liability, as well as
risking possible adverse employment action. If needed, the school may
have to arrange for other staff to implement the IEP services or
accommodations while the issue is addressed by administration. Hearing
officers or courts do not generally care why the IEP has not been
implemented or what particular staffperson is to blame—they will find
the school in violation of IDEA if the implementation failure is material or
if it has resulted in educational harm to the student.

• Documentation of Implementation of IEP—In a due process hearing, the
parent would bear the burden of proving that there was a material failure to
implement the IEP in order to show a denial of FAPE and obtain relief. But,
schools may want to document the implementation of the IEP services and
accommodations in order to demonstrate that the IEP has been implemented
properly. In a Florida case, a district had no documentation to show that it had
provided speech therapy services and classroom accommodations to a student.
In addition, existing documentation showed the student did not receive all the
special education instruction set forth on his IEP. Since the evidence also
indicated that the student was not making progress on his IEP goals, the hearing
officer agreed with the parent that the problem was a failure of implementation
of the IEP. Lee County Sch. Dist., 114 LRP 23165 (SEA Florida 2014). Similarly,
an Indiana district had no documentation of teachers’ implementation of
accommodations calling for teacher notes to be provided to the student, as well
as allowing the student to use notes and math formulas during tests. Although
the school had sent an email survey to the teachers asking them if the
accommodations were implemented, there was no actual documentation of the
accommodations, such as copies of distributed teacher notes, notations on
teacher lesson plans, or other anecdotal notes. East Allen County Sch. Corp., 63
IDELR 60 (SEA Indiana 2014).

Practical Note—While compliance with the IEP is more important than
documenting compliance with the IEP, documentation of proper and
consistent implementation of the IEP can make or break a case,
particularly in situations where the student is not making expected
progress. Documentation of services should take place with service logs,
while documentation of accommodations can take place by means of
teacher notes, notes on lesson plans, keeping copies of modified work,
notations on calendars, or other methods. Crucially, there must be
documentation that the IEP is made available as soon as possible to staff
responsible for implementing it. If the school uses electronic means to
share IEPs, there should be electronic documentation of staff’s receipt of
the IEP.

• Is collaboration among school staff required for proper implementation of
the IEP?—A failure of staff to coordinate services and communicate regarding a
student’s progress can result in a failure to implement the IEP and a denial of
FAPE. In Houston Ind. Sch. Dist. v. V. P., 53 IDELR 1 (5th Cir. 2009), a student

with auditory processing and speech impairments needed a variety of services in
order to receive FAPE. Key service providers, however, never discussed the
student and her progress outside of IEP team meetings, an FM loop system was
out of service for two months and was implemented by a school nurse who had
little training, other staff had only minimal training on addressing the student’s
auditory issues, and the student did not attend her required content mastery
center for more than two months. The court found that the missing services and
staff’s failure to coordinate and communicate about the child resulted in a denial
of FAPE and a resulting liability for the costs of private placement.

Practical Note—This type of problem can arise in situations where the IEP
is complex and many types of services, aids, supports, and
accommodations are being provided. At the end of IEP meetings in this
type of case, a supervisor may want to sit down with the responsible
staffpersons and list all IEP components, set deadlines for completion,
make clear who is responsible for what, and set up collaboration and
consultation schedules. The supervisor, moreover, may want to
periodically self-monitor IEP implementation with a prepared checklist, so
that problems can be identified internally, rather than by means of parent
complaints.

• Short or minor lapses in IEP implementation may not rise to the level of a
denial of FAPE—Although schools are well advised to implement IEPs to the
letter, minor lapses in IEP implementation that do not result in significant
educational harm to the student will not generally rise to the level of a denial of
FAPE. In Sarah Z. v. Menlo Park Sch. Dist., 48 IDELR 37 (N.D.Cal. 2007), a
school failed to implement behavioral support services for two weeks for a
teenager with speech impairments and behavioral problems. The court
determined that the two-week lapse in behavioral services was not significant
enough to deprive the student of a FAPE.

Similarly, in Catalan ex rel. E.C. v. District of Columbia, 47 IDELR 223
(D.D.C. 2007), although a speech therapist missed a few sessions and cut
some others short due to student fatigue, the court found there was no
denial of FAPE, as the occasional deviations from the IEP were not
significant or substantial enough to deprive the student of a meaningful
educational benefit. The court noted that other circuit courts had followed
the lead of the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision in Houston Ind. Sch. Dist. v.
Bobby R., which held that only material implementation failures rise to the
level of a denial of FAPE. “Thus, a court reviewing failure-to-implement
claims under [the IDEA] must ascertain whether the aspects of the IEP
that were not followed were ‘substantial or significant,’ or, in other words,
whether the deviations from the IEP’s stated requirements were
‘material….’” Here, the court held a handful of missed speech sessions
and some others cut short due to student fatigue were neither substantial
nor significant.

Practical Note—In the Catalan case above, it proved crucial that the speech
therapist documented that some speech sessions had to be cut short due to

student fatigue issues. If such a problem were persistent, an IEP team
meeting might be necessary in order to address the problem, such as by
breaking down sessions into shorter segments. It also helped that there
were only a handful of missed sessions due to therapist absence. Ideally,
any sessions missed due to provider issues would be made up within a
reasonable time.

• Does a student’s failure to progress mean the IEP was not properly
implemented?—Certainly that is possible. A natural outcome of material failures
to implement a proper IEP will be that students will fail to achieve mastery of
their IEP goals and/or general curriculum. But not every failure to make
expected progress means there was a failure of IEP implementation. In W.B. v.
Houston Ind. Sch. Dist., 60 IDELR 69 (S.D.Tex. 2012), the fact that a 9-year-old
with Autism was unable to perform certain academic tasks at the end of 2nd
grade that he was able to perform earlier in the year was found not to be the
result of any failure to implement the IEP. Instead, the court found there was a
significant alternate reasons for the student’s regression: the family’s move to
another state so the mother could be treated for cancer, attendance at a new
school, new teachers, new teaching methods. The student was unable to perform
two-digit subtraction at the end of 2nd grade, which was a skill a prior district’s
IEP indicated was already mastered. But, the court noted that the same
worksheets also showed the student had progressed to three-digit addition. The
District also produced evidence that students with Autism often have difficulty
generalizing skills to new settings. “Especially in light of the stressful
environmental changes encountered by this nine-years-old child during this one-
year period, the Court finds from a preponderance of the evidence that any lack
of progress in the advancement of W.B.’s education was not attributable to a
failure by Ms. Richards to implement the IEP.” See also Central Sch. Dist., 114
LRP 16957 (SEA Oregon 2014)(emergence of behavior issues was not proof that
communication components of IEP were not implemented, particularly in light
of evidence that speech-language services were provided per the IEP).

Practical Note—If a student is not making the progress that would normally
be expected, a school should take action through the IEP team process, and
should verify whether the IEP is being implemented properly. The IEP
team should attempt to ascertain the causes of the lack of expected
progress, which could include need for additional instructional services,
accommodations, related services, or supplementary aids. Or, the IEP goals
may have been cast too optimistically vis-à-vis the current evaluation data.
Depending on the team’s findings, the team should take appropriate
action. If there is a non-school reason for the lack of progress, such as
significant home or parent issues, as in the Houston ISD case above, those
potential stressors should be documented, and the team should consider
whether any IEP services could be brought to bear to assist the student in
dealing any such problems, such as through counseling services.

Additional related case—In Clark County Sch. Dist., 62 IDELR 278 (SEA
Nevada 2013), the parent of a 5-year-old with cognitive impairment
claimed that he returned home with injuries, and that the injuries were

proof that the IEP requirement of “close supervision for safety” on the
school bus was not implemented. The hearing officer, however, found that
the school complied with the requirement by seating the student alone and
in close view of the bus driver, and by setting up a camera on the bus.
There was no evidence establishing when and how the student was
injured. Even if there was proof that the injuries occurred on the bus, “the
fact that the student suffered injuries does not prove close supervision was
not provided.” In addition, the injuries appeared minor, and the court
noted that more harm was probably occasioned the student by removing
him from school for a lengthy period of time.

• Implementation of behavioral components of an IEP —Escalation of
student behaviors can sometimes lead to claims that the school has failed to
implement IEP components designed to address behavior, such as behavior
intervention plans (BIPs). In Mesa County Valley Sch. Dist. 51, 113 LRP 33665
(SEA Colorado 2013), a 9th-grader with significant processing impairments and
behavior problems became agitated and volatile with transitioning from class to
class. After several aggressive incidents, the team revised his BIP accordingly.
Despite detailed BIP strategies, the principal and special education teacher could
not de-escalate an incident where the student was hitting windows with an air
pump for 20 minutes. When the district recommended placement in a
therapeutic day program, the parent initiated legal action, claiming that the
school failed to follow the BIP. The administrative law judge concluded,
however, that the parent did not prove that the school failed to implement the
student’s IEP “with fidelity and in good faith.” The problem was not a failure to
implement the BIP, or any lack of experience or credentials, but rather the
student’s inability to navigate this regular high school campus environment. The
proposed day program, moreover, would substantially decrease the number of
transitions the student would have to negotiate, which was a significant trigger
for behavioral outbursts.

Comment—Schools should note with caution, however, that a failure to
implement a student’s BIP, when behavior is a preeminent component of
the student’s educational needs, can lead to findings of denial of FAPE.
See, e.g. Mr. & Mrs. C. v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 6, 49 IDELR 36 (D.Me.
2007)(“The 2006-07 IEP, as amended in April 2006, transparently elevated
one goal—achievement of KC’s behavioral objectives—to a position of
preeminence, making clear that other IEP objectives were to yield if need
be”).

Practical Note—If a BIP has been developed and put into place in the IEP,
but problems behaviors persist, special education staff should first check
to verify consistent implementation of the BIP. Sometimes, a briefing and
Q&A session with teachers and other implementers can improve the
results of the BIP. If not, it may be time to return to an IEP meeting to
revise the BIP with updated data and additional or new ideas.

• Implementation of paraprofessional assistance—Claims of failure to
implement the IEP can arise with respect to IEP provisions calling for

paraprofessional or aide assistance, as in the case of Manalansan v. Bd. of Educ.
of Baltimore City, 35 IDELR 122 (D.Md. 2001), where a school district failed to
consistently provide aide assistance as required in the student’s IEP. Although
the school argued that it made best efforts to implement the aide assistance, it
encountered difficulty in finding and maintaining aides that would be punctual
and consistent. The court held that the school’s good faith efforts did not
discharge its duty to implement that important aspect of the student’s IEP. In a
case where the IEP initially called for the parents’ privately provided aide to
assist the student at school, however, the court held that the school’s change in
the choice of aide was not a failure to implement the IEP, since even if the private
aide was required under the IEP, the change to a district aide was not a material
breach of the IEP. Slama v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 2580, 39 IDELR 3
(D.Minn. 2003)(“While we understand the Plaintiffs’ abundant good faith in
seeking the assignment, as a PCA, of one in whom they had great trust, the fact
remains that no parent of a public school child—whether the child is disabled or
not—is entitled to select every component of the child’s education”).

Note—The Manalansan case, cited above, also stands for the proposition
that while the provision of aide assistance may be an important part of the
IEP, and thus mandatory, the student is not guaranteed any particular aide
as part of implementing that IEP component.

Practical Note—Many times, the IEP document is not sufficiently precise in
describing with specificity the role of the aide—what assistance they will
provide, at what times, in which settings, how intensive, what purpose,
etc. The more the IEP specifies the support, the less probability of disputes
over its implementation. In situations where staffing issues are creating an
implementation problem, the campus should attempt to arrange for
substitute assistance while a permanent aide can be found.

• Implementation of Extended School Year (ESY) Services—Since most state
regulations require ESY for students who are likely to experience substantial
regression without summer programming, failures to provide ESY services
required under the IEP will be found to constitute a denial of FAPE, as in the
case of Shank v. Howard Road Academy, 51 IDELR 151 (D.D.C. 2008), where a
school “forgot” to submit the required forms to ensure that a student received
ESY services as set forth in his IEP. The court found that the implementation
failure was material, and thus rose to the level of a denial of FAPE. It noted that
the IEP team itself had documented that the need for ESY was “critical.” It
therefore ordered compensatory services to be provided to the student.

Practical Note—Here, the problem was basic and bureaucratic: forms
necessary to ensure that a student would be assigned to ESY were not
completed. The system was such, apparently, that the student could not
be made to receive the services without the forms being completed by a
certain timeline. This type of system inflexibility can set up districts for
implementation lapses, thus giving rise to a need for a verification
counter-system to ensure that all students with ESY on their IEPs in fact
are signed up to receive them.

• Implementation of Related Services—Although it is not uncommon for
schools to not provide related services the first couple of weeks in the school
year, such a practice can be legally problematic, as shown in the case of R.A.-G.
v. Buffalo City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 61 IDELR 164 (W.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d 63
IDELR 152 (2nd Cir. 2014). There, a parent of a New York student sought a class
action to end the District’s practice of not providing related services the first two
weeks of the school year. The court found that the case met the requirements for
class certification, since the practice applied to all special education students
receiving related services.

Additional related case—The fact that a New York district had in place a
back-up system in case its own related services providers were unable to
provide services helped it defend a claim of failure to implement related
services. F.L. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 62 IDELR 191 (2nd Cir.
2014). The parent unilaterally removed the student to a private facility,
claiming the District had a history of problems providing needed services.
The court held that the parent’s claims with regard to the District’s
problems in meeting related services obligations to other students was at
best speculative with respect to her own child, and did not suffice to prove
there was a denial of FAPE. The court thus denied reimbursement for the
private placement.

Practical Note—Because they tend to be discrete pull-out services, a lapse
in related services tends to be quickly noticed by parents. Thus, sessions
missed due to provider issues should be made up within a reasonable
time, and the parent should be informed of that fact. On another point, the
Buffalo case above makes clear that there is no rule relieving districts of
their obligations to provide IEP related services at the start of the school
year. Some schools list related services in terms of sessions per semester or
year, so that there can be some flexibility in implementation if sessions are
missed the first two weeks of school, for example. Check with your state
education agency for guidance on what their expectations are in this
regard, and what practices can help with this problem.

• Implementation of Auditory Impairment (AI) Services—In M.S. v. Utah
School for the Deaf and Blind, 114 LRP 37736 (D.Utah 2014), instructors
inconsistently implemented the communication system of a student with hearing
loss, Autism, and ID. Those inconsistencies in the student’s object cues, together
with a teacher’s unilateral decision to discontinue the use of an FM trainer, a
failure to use tactile signing, and a failure to provide consistency in the
communication system across environments, amounted to a material failure to
implement the IEP. The changes in object cues interfered with the student’s
ability to communicate and receive information. “While some deference should
be given to teachers, the IEP is created by a team of individuals with various
areas of expertise and requires the classroom teacher to implement the
components, even the ones that the teacher may not agree with or care to
implement….” The court thus found a denial of FAPE, and ordered
compensatory education services.

Practical Note—Here, the implementation lapses and failures were many.
Teachers must understand that they cannot unilaterally discontinue the
use of a device, an accommodation, or a supplementary aid, without IEP
team approval. Beyond constituting a lapse in IEP implementation, such
actions can risk claims that the school is infringing on the parents’ right to
meaningfully participate in the development of the IEP. Staff should be
trained that if they encounter problems with existing IEP services, devices,
or supplementary aids, they should contact a special education
representative, discuss the problem, and decide whether an IEP team
meeting may be necessary, rather than taking unilateral action that
essentially changes the IEP.

Lavf56.36.100

Running head: BRIEF TITLE 1

BRIEF TITLE 2

Title of paper

Your Name

National University

In partial fulfillment for the requirements of

Professor Buckhout

Date (Use due date)

Abstract

On separate page, double space, do not indent, use third person. What will this paper do?

Full title of paper

Introduction to your paper begins on page 3. It is not on a separate page or titled but includes pertinent information regarding the topic and general points you will make. It is not in third person.

Major Heading

(Centered, bold, with a title, not required but helpful to ensure you answer every part of the assignment. You can use this without Subheading.)

Subheading

(Flush with margin, bold, titled, don’t use without Major Heading)

References (separate page, double spaced, not bold)

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lavf56.36.100

Action

(in order of the actions) and why you have selected those actions

People Involved in the action and why you have selected those people

Support from the reading and material provided each week that supports your actions and choices.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ IEP week 4 assignment ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now