On September 21st, 2012, the state of California signed into law AB 1729. Effective as of January 2013, this law aims to protect student’s rights against automatic and immediate expulsions and suspensions. The implementation of AB 1729 marks a significant shift from automatically punishing students for misbehaving[i]. Instead, AB 1729 requires that school officials first pursue alternative measures to punishment before turning to suspension and expulsions as a last effort. This shift has increased student participation and attendance by improving the social climate of schools through reduced conflict and behavioral issues.

The Previous Nature of Suspensions and Expulsions

Before the implementation of AB 1729, California Education Code 48900 gave the power of expulsions and suspensions to school officials. Code 48900 stated that pupils could be suspended or expelled simply if a superintendent or principle determined that a student committed a specific, non-violent act[ii].

Such non-violent acts included class disruptions and willful defiance[iii]. Under the previous Code 48900, school officials were allowed to turn to alternatives to expulsion and suspension for these non-violent acts. Prior to AB 1729, however, these school officials were not mandated to pursue alternative methods before resorting to suspension or expulsion.

Penalty Alternatives Under AB 1729

The 2013 implementation of AB 1729 transformed Code 48900 by requiring that principals and superintendents first use non-punishment methods before turning to suspension and expulsion. Schools are required to thoroughly prove and document these alternative means of correcting student behavior. All alternative measures taken must be documented on a student’s official record. These alternatives must be both age appropriate and personally designed to address the student’s specific behavioral problems[iv]. As outlined by AB 1729, these specific other means of correction include:

  • Programs that teach positive behavior
  • Conferences between school personnel, parents, and students
  • Participation in restorative justice programs
  • After school curriculum that targets behavioral issues with positive skills development
  • Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programs

Punishment alternatives, such as these, were mandated in 2013 to reduce expulsion and suspensions, but just how successful have these policies been?

Reduced Punishment Drives Attendance and Engagement

Between 1970 and 2013, suspension rates in the United States more than doubled – from 3.7% to 7.5%. In 2012, when AB 1729 was signed, up to 400,000 students were suspended from school at least once per year. To track the impact of AB 1729, the California Department of Education began a series of case studies on select California school districts. One of these school districts with the greatest increase in attendance under AB 1729 was Tuolumne County[v].

In the 2011-2012 Tuolumne school year, 640 students were suspended and 46 pupils were expelled. By 2014-2015, only 373 students were suspended and a mere 15 were expelled. The Los Angeles Unified School District additionally experienced a similar phenomenon under AB 1729. Since the law’s 2013 implementation, LA Unified has experienced a 24% decline in suspensions and a 31% decline in expulsions[vi].

California school districts have seen these drastic drops in suspension and expulsion rates through turning to policies that teach and reinforce positive social behaviors and skills. When fighting, bickering, and disruptions occur in the classroom, schools no longer automatically punish students. Instead, schools have issued school-wide positive behavior, intervention, and SEL programs to correct negative behaviors and implicit biases that cause conflict[vii].

Social Emotional Learning (SEL) is the process of teaching students to acquire and apply positive behavior skills and attitudes. These skills and attitudes include managing emotions, establishing positive relationships, and handling challenging social situations. SEL programs implemented in California under AB 1729 have reduced:

  • Disruptive behavior by 64%
  • Physically aggressive behavior by 45%
  • Discipline referrals by 43%

These declines in negative interactions and behaviors are due to schools using alternatives to expulsion and suspensions. These reduced punishments keep students in school and increase attendance by eliminating penalties that remove pupils from the classroom. By introducing practices that encourage positive behavior instead of punishing negative behavior, schools create a more engaging environment. Pupils in a positive social environment are less likely to act out in school and more likely to be excited about learning.

The SEL and positive alternative approaches to punishment that AB 1729 has introduced have not only driven suspension and expulsion rates down, but have created positive social environments where kids are excited to come to school and engaged in their learning.

About CoolSchool Central

CoolSchool Central aims to facilitate the transformation that Changes Futures by using SEL and video modeling. With CoolSchool Central, schools have the opportunity to save funding that can be invested back into the system to continually work towards positive behavioral development for students. Good for schools, good for students. Let’s help make this positive change together!

CoolSchool Central’s mission is to Change Futures by helping public schools create a safe, enjoyable environment where kids are excited about education. Studies show that the two key reasons why children don’t go to school are being afraid of being bullied at school and finding school to be boring. Using animated interactive programs, CoolSchool Central delivers SEL in an easy and engaging way to teach kids how to manage and navigate social interactions – creating truly CoolSchools.

At the beginning of 2013-2014 school year, the California Department of Education rolled out its Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The goal of the LCFF is to simplify how State funding is provided to local education agencies. The old system of funding was based on a revenue limit multiplied by the school district’s average daily attendance. With LCFF, the State has dropped its 40-year-old system; it has created a new method of funding that eliminates revenue limits and targets student profiles.

Parent-Teacher Associations Will Play Key Roles
The LCFF requires each school district to involve parents, teachers, and educators in creating a Local Control and Accountability Plan. This plan has eight areas of focus that reflect factors in and out of the classroom that shape students’ academic success. These areas include:

• basic services
• implementation of State standards
• course access
• student achievement
• other student outcomes
• student engagement
• parent involvement
• school climate

Altogether, the LCFF works to ensure that funding goes to support high quality educational programs — from fully credentialed teachers in each subject area to ensuring that school programs provide equal opportunity for each student.

The top notch educational programs are not the only part of a good school. The quality of the school social climate is just as important. With this in mind, the State designated half of the funding areas to maintaining the school climate and academic environment. These areas include:

• student health
• safety
• student discipline
• school connectedness

The State measures school connectedness through suspension and expulsion rates as well as surveys from students, teachers, and parents. The State also focuses on student engagement; the school should provide stimulating programs and course work that promote attendance and graduation. The State measures engagement through attendance rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates.

Even though the State introduced its LCFF plan, in some cases it still provides grants based on average daily attendance. The State provides school districts and charter schools a uniform base grant based on average daily attendance.

In Summary
The new LCFF plan gives school districts an opportunity to not only invest in the academic learning of students, but social-emotional learning as well. The LCFF involves the school’s parents, teachers, and staff in defining both academic and social learning programs. These programs should be designed to create an engaging and successful classroom environment. By investing in both aspects of children’s education, schools are supporting children’s academic success to the fullest extent. The academic and social-emotional programs work together to help students mature and connect to the academic environment. This, in turn, fosters a stronger will to learn. This new funding plan helps school districts promote better attendance and graduation rates by creating positive and engaging classroom environments.

In conducting an initial bullying survey of 92 respondents, we sought to better understand the social climate present within different school campuses, in addition to the currently existing initiatives and challenges schools face in implementing successful SEL and anti-bullying programs. We also gauged the potential interest schools may have in implementing Cool School, a program which combines SEL and anti-bullying.

Of the survey respondents, 83.78% were principals and 14.86% were assistant principals. A majority, 70.27%, worked in elementary schools, while 28.38% worked in middle schools. In surveying the social climate, morale, and absenteeism in schools, the ratings given by respondents was fairly mixed among all grade levels.

Overall Findings

Overall, ratings were leaning more positively toward extremely good and fairly good. In rating social climate, there were no respondents that felt their school’s climate to be extremely bad, indicated by a rating of 5.

School Social Climate

A quarter of respondents found their school climate to be extremely good (24.68%; rating 1), and 48.05% found their social climate to be fairly good (48.05%; rating 2).

In terms of morale, 54.55% of respondents felt that the morale of school staff as a whole was fairly good (rating 2), with 20.78% of respondents finding it to be extremely good (rating 1).

Student Morale

The evaluation of the morale of students was positively skewed towards fairly good as well (53.25%; rating 2), with the second highest rating being extremely good (27.27%; rating 1).

Absenteeism

In regards to absenteeism, other than a single respondent, most of the survey takers indicated experiencing low levels of absenteeism within their school districts (42.86%; rating 2 and 27.27%; rating 1).

SEL Initiative

In terms of currently operating SEL programs and general school funding, half of respondents stated that their school had an SEL initiative program currently in place. For the 50% that had an SEL program, 64.29% of them had an SEL program at the district wide level.

School Funding

Nearly half of respondents (45.45%) stated that state funding for their school was based solely on attendance, while 36.36% stated that it was attendance and enrollment in tandem. It should be noted, however, that the 82.43% of respondents from California gave mixed and occasionally contrasting responses on how state funding was issued and utilized in their state.

Bullying

When surveyed on bullying issues and programs, 44.59% of respondents felt that bullying presented a somewhat serious challenge in their school district. It should be noted that this marked recognition of bullying as a problem in schools contrasts sharply with respondents positively rating the social climate of their facilities.

Despite nearly three quarters of respondents evaluating their school’s climate as extremely good or fairly good, bullying is still identified as a severe issue in nearly half of these same respondents.

Survey takers stated that the types of bullying that concerns them the most is verbal (78.38%), spreading rumors (52.70%), cyber (44.59%), physical (39.19%), exclusion (31.08%), and threats (27.03%). Approximately 7% participants showed concern in almost all categories (excluding damage).

Bullying Prevention Programs

Having recognized bullying as a notable challenge, nearly three quarters of respondents (70.27%) have already implemented programs to prevent bullying in their schools. Of the remaining respondents, 20.27% are currently in the process of implementation and an additional 6.76% have yet to implement a program in their school, but would like to in the near future. Of the programs already in place, 89.86% are ongoing programs.

The majority of schools with one-time programs would like to change over to an ongoing program.

In regards to who the program is designed for, respondents were fairly divided in terms of which grade levels programs were directed towards (8.57% for K-2, 31.43% for 3-4, 27.14% for 5-6, and 32.86% for 6+).

Accessibility of Bullying Prevention Programs

Over half of respondents (61.43%) noted that a significant challenge for these programs in their districts is a lack of accessibility for students and parents. Of the programs currently in operation, 60.98% were accessed only in the classroom through either one-on-one counseling (17.07%) or through PBIS/group counseling (17%). An additional factor barring accessibility is the fact that many schools (81.82%) received no state funding for their program. Of the schools receiving funding, monetary sources that were identified included funding from the district (41.67%) and from grants (25%).

Measuring Outcomes

In measuring the effectiveness of these programs, 64.18% already measure the outcome of their program, while 26.87% do not but would like to. In terms of frequency of measurement, 69.05% measure the outcome of their programs more frequently than once a year, and 19.05% measure annually. There are various ways that schools measure their programs. 35.71% measure the outcome through ongoing evaluation, 26.19% through analyzing changes of other data they gather, and 16.67% use other measures like discipline referrals or a combination of surveys, ongoing evaluation, and data analysis.

Cost of Programs and Lack of Funding

When prompted if they had any potential interest in a complementary program to their existing ones, 68.75% of respondents were not interested. Reasons for not wanting to complement the program included the additional cost/lack of funding, already having several other programs in place, or the need for district approval. However, 43.08% of respondents stated that they would be interested in a program combining SEL and anti-bullying. For the 56.92% that were not interested in this combined program specifically, reasons included the costs of implementing a new program or the existence of an already working program.

Teacher Turnover rates are at an all-time high in public schools, and they are disproportionately impacting kids from low-income households.

“When I applied for my job there were 70 applicants; when we advertised for new teaching positions last year there were three. The drop in numbers is scary – maths and English are struggling to recruit…” remarks Jonathan, teacher and head of his department for five years. Yes, it is getting harder and harder to recruit teachers for our public schools.

Here is what the Federal data tells us:

  • Over 17% of new teachers leave their jobs within four years. Over a quarter of these teachers leave involuntarily due to budget constraints or performance levels.
  • Teachers are more likely to leave if they are over the age of thirty and in their second career.
  • Male teachers are also more likely to leave their careers, as well as Alternative Certification Program teachers. For example, in the year 2011-2012, twenty-one percent of the Alternative Certification Programs teachers left their careers verses the sixteen percent of traditionally certified teachers.
  • Teachers with their first year in a high-poverty area are also more likely to quit or transfer to a more affluent area.

One of the problems that new teachers encounter is the stark contrast between what they envisioned their lives would be as a teacher verses the reality of actually teaching in our public schools. New teachers become overwhelmed by the basic fundamentals of the education system including standards, formal assessments, benchmark tests, collection of data & analysis, phone calls to parents, variability within student comprehension & ability, and advance curriculum planning.

To the new teachers, there seems to be an improper balance between time spent teaching, paperwork, and personal time—creating disillusionment, particularly for new teachers.

Gaby Proctor, 22, former teacher-in-training who quit after three months in the program says, “Now I’m going to work, doing my work and working hard, and I can go home and I don’t have to worry about it at home. There was no downtime with teaching. You have to take it home with you, you don’t have a choice. I have mental health issues anyway, with depression and anxiety disorders, and I found it made them so much worse. The pressure, it’s crazy.”

The Tragedy of Poverty

The real problem, however, is lack of funding, which is especially apparent in poorer areas.

“Low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed, but in far too many places, policies for assigning teachers and allocating resources are perpetuating the problem rather than solving it,” says former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

The highest teacher turnover rates happen in the very areas that need good teachers—high-poverty areas in inner cities and rural districts.

For example, one reason well-funded schools attract highly qualified teachers is better work conditions. The schools are cleaner, well maintained, and well-provisioned with teaching supplies.

In the Teachers College Record Study of Teaching Conditions in Massachusetts Schools, it was found that 53% of the teachers in more affluent areas believed that their school is “a good place to work and learn,” while only 32% of teachers in the areas with the highest degree of poverty believed the same.

Unfortunately, far too often, socio-economic conditions become reliable predictors of student success.

Experienced Teachers are Leaving

Many teachers within high-poverty districts are leaving these schools. Often, these teachers relocate to school districts in more affluent areas, with better performing students, and less ethnic diversity. In 2013, The American Educational Research Journal stated that this “…results in organizational instability and concentration of less experienced, lower performing teachers, both of which hurt student achievement.”

Low Salary

The “Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in the Five Years,” study focused on new teachers that began their careers in 2007-2008. A growing percentage of the teachers did not choose to continue their careers: 10% of teachers did not continue teaching in 2008-2009. This increased to 12% in 2009-2010, then 15%in 2010-2011, and 17% in 2011-2012.

A big reason for the turnover was salary. The study observed that 97% of teachers whose salary their first year was $40,000 or more continued teaching in 2008-2009. Furthermore, 89% of these teachers continued teaching into 2011-2012.

By contrast, only 89% of teachers whose salary their first year was less then $40,000 continued teaching in 2008-2009. This number dropped further to 80% of teachers who continued teaching into 2011-2012.

Wealthier schools with proper funding were able to afford to provide higher salaries. Therefore, they were able to attract and retain more qualified teachers. This further translated to better stability and moral, eventually resulting in more successful students – a sharp contrast to their cohorts in poorer areas.

The Vicious Cycle of Lack of Funding

Lack of funding creates a vicious cycle for schools in lower-income districts:

  • Because of the way schools are funded through local property taxes, these schools already start with less funding when compared with their counterparts in more affluent suburbs.
  • As a result, they have difficulty providing the salary or the working conditions necessary to attract high-quality teachers, or retain them once hired.
  • This high turnover of teachers only exacerbates the truancy rates that these schools already experience. The higher truancy now costs these schools sorely needed Federal funding.
  • With still lower funding, these schools continue to struggle, and lose teachers
  • This results in classroom disruptions, bullying and harassment, further leading to penalties and more truancy.

And the vicious cycle spirals down.

A Solution with a Catch

What can our public schools do to reverse this trend, and attract and retain high-quality teachers?

We know mentoring by seasoned older teachers helps. It is not unusual for new teachers to feel overwhelmed by the amount of work they have to do each day, without seeming to make any apparent impact.

“If I was having a problem with a child, someone would come into the room to observe and give me advice. I felt like they had my back,” says Jennifer Scoggins, 32, a teacher in New York, who is also on her way towards getting her Ph.D.

There is research evidence to support that mentoring programs work. In 2008-2009, 92% of teachers with mentors continued teaching into their second year compared to 84% without mentorship. In 2011-2012, these numbers 86% compared to 71% without a mentor. The results of this study induced the Federal Government to invest $21 million to create twenty-eight teacher-residency programs that provide prospective teachers with hands-on experience.

However, there is catch here. An increasing number of experienced teachers are leaving their teaching careers, resulting in a shortage of mentors for the programs.

“I can’t see myself doing this until the current retirement age. I can see teachers, working early mornings, late nights, demanding days, at 68 years old… I can see teachers dying in the classroom, I really can,” says Graham, 30, teacher and assistant head of her school.

So, what now?

Changing the Social Climate

As discussed above, schools in poorer areas have especially hard time recruiting and retaining high quality teachers. We also showed that this creates a vicious cycle that only deteriorates with time. So, how can these schools turn this situation around?

We know the answer lies in better funding, which would help create a better environment for both students and teachers. However, clearly there is not much that schools can do about  state and local funding. That formula is out of their control.

These schools, however, can do something about Federal Funding–if they can reduce their truancy and bullying rates. In California, public schools lose over $1 billion in funding each year to truancy alone. The vast majority of the schools that lose such funds are in low-income areas. Keeping this funding would go a long way in creating the climate that is conducive to high quality education.

The key is to create a positive social climate that is attractive to both teachers and students. But, how do we do that?

What if we get these kids to want to come to school and stay in class without disrupting? How can we make learning more accessible and more fun?

One way this can be done is through an emerging concept called Interactive Learning, which is more engaging and more effective than traditional teaching methods. Through the use of interactive animations and video modeling, students are able to grasp complex concepts and place them in real world situations, building strong cognitive skills. With interactive learning, real-life concepts become balanced and aligned with a thriving classroom atmosphere that includes teamwork and positive behavior, improving the educational climate for teachers and students.

This is why interactive learning has been proven to be an effective mechanism for delivering Social Emotional Learning (SEL), which can ultimately change behavior within the student population, leading to a reduction in bullying, classroom disruption, and absenteeism. Improve absenteeism and reduce bullying, and funding will begin to improve.

About Us

CoolSchool develops video based interactive lessons for teaching Social Emotional Learning, reducing bullying and absenteeism in public elementary schools.

Contact us today for a demo of the suite of products that significantly reduce both absenteeism and bullying.

Do you know which sector of the US economy is worth $1.3 trillion dollars? Here’s a hint: it is the second largest economic sector in the United States, claiming almost 9% of the US GDP.

Yes, it is the education sector, comprising of 100,000 public schools, 30,00 private schools, and 4,000 charter/other k-12 schools—all leading into a total of $1.3 trillion-dollar giant sector of our economy.

But, is that the whole story? If the education sector is worth such a large monetary number, why are especially public school educators feeling the pinch of the budget in their schools? How much of this money is actually being allocated to individual districts and schools? Why are there inconsistencies with the values of these numbers and the district-level experiences?

Whether schools have sufficient funding to successfully fulfill their mission of educating students depends on at least the following factors:

  • The Sources of Funding
  • Factors that affect the allocation of these funds

Both have their own challenges and we will examine each in turn.

Variability in the Availability of Funding

According to Marguerite Roza, Director of the Edunomics lab at Georgetown University, the amount of dollars that school districts spend is more a function of available dollars than actual cost of educating students. School Districts typically will spend what they get and that depends on sources of funds. If a school districts funding source is more State than local government (property tax), the school district will likely get less funding, and spend less. Therefore, the largest spending school districts are in areas of high-property tax value.

The unit of measure of public school funding is money allocated per pupil. The chart below shows the funding rates from 2006 through 2014 (adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars. Source: The US Census)

US k-12 Education Spending Per Student

US k-12 Education Spending Per Student

This chart holds true for nearly every state—funding was highest during the early days of the Great Recession due to the impact of the Recovery Act, and slipped down each year after that.

Where the state provides the vast majority of funding for schools, the disparity between school districts is minimal. For example, in Vermont, the State provides 87.3% of the funding for public schools.

On the other, the state of Illinois only provides 32.5% of the funding and schools have to obtain the rest from local sources. In such a case, the school districts in the more affluent neighborhoods with higher property tax rates are significantly more funded than those in poor neighborhoods. For example, Fairfax VA public schools received only $2,764 per pupil from the State, but provided nearly $10,000 per student, while Price William County, while receiving the same funding level from the State of VA, was able to provide only $4,813 per student.

Unless states change their funding model, this disparity between school districts found in rich and poor neighborhoods will continue to persist.

The balancing story so far has come from Federal aids that target these poor communities.

Why This Matters

According to the a 2012 report by the Alert Shanker Institute, author of the report and Rutgers University Professor Bruce Baker stated, “Sustained improvements to the level and distribution of funding across local public school districts can lead to improvements in the level and distribution of student outcomes.” The report continues, “Schooling resources that cost money, including smaller class sizes, additional supports, early childhood programs and more competitive teacher compensation (permitting schools and districts to recruit and retain a higher-quality teacher workforce), are positively associated with student outcomes.”

Clearly, more funding for schools generally means better outcomes for students.

But the challenges that poor school districts face do not stop with just the sources of funds. It is further exacerbated by how those scarce resources are allocated.

States Consider Allocating funds by Attendance

More and more states are moving from funding based on enrollment funding which is based on student attendance.  With this change, state funding is being distributed differently throughout regional school districts, placing a numerical value on the head on each child, approximately $48.30 per student.

Unfortunately, this is a nationwide problem that is causing a drain on the education system.

What is the dollar value of each student? According to KPBS and the Watchdog Institute: $5,230.

Not just an empty seat.

  • One sophomore at Lincoln High School in Southeast San Diego is reported as having missed 87 days of school, “or nearly half of the 10th grade,” totaling a loss of -$2,464.71 of funding.
  • In one school year (2009-2010), the San Diego Public Schools have reported a loss of “at least $102 million in state funding because of absences.”
  • Five years of this chronic absenteeism has cost this school district a total of “$624 million.”

The vast majority of chronically absent kids are those who would benefit the most from attending school—children from poor households.

It is doubly daunting for school districts in poorer districts, who are already lack the funds necessary to create the ideal learning environment, further lose funds due to absenteeism, which is likely at least partially caused by the lack of funds to start with.

This is a vicious cycle within which poor schools are trapped—one problem causing another, which feeds into yet another and so on.

Net gain vs. social gain

Not only does absenteeism cause a loss funding, but also a loss of student learning potential, causing students to have lower testing scores, individually and district-wide. Studies also show that students from low-income families are “more likely to be absent from school and to experience greater losses in achievement for each missed day of school.”

What This Means

According to Sam Matteson, “consistent attendance helps students lay a foundation for the development of more complex skills. Poor student attendance is a reliable predictor of failure to graduate from high school, as well as the odds of early college success.”

The Children’s Aid Society reports

  • “75% of chronically absent sixth graders drop out before graduation”
  • “80% of juveniles arrested in New York City have a history of poor attendance”

Clearly, improving attendance and reducing chronic absenteeism is one of the most effective initiatives that schools can undertake to improve overall positive outcomes for students.

The question is: how do schools do that?


About Us

Cool School, by The Social Express, is the next generation of Social Emotional Learning

and Anti-Bullying solutions.  Cool School was developed by psychologists and is based on proven video modeling techniques, which engage students while providing a safe place for students to learn how to communicate effectively.