Risky Business yields a risk profile
The phase one methodology of Risky Business is to collect baseline data on student perception and empathy. By comparing results to the national norms we have accrued on Risky Business, from thousands of students across the United States, we determine a “risk profile” for the participating school. This corresponds to the points of divergence of the sample under consideration in relation to the national norms. Through our research, we have learned that, as much as there are universals, there are also some points of divergence between a particular school population and the national norms. These misalignments mark cultural variations that further refine normative expectancies for the group. Thus, Risky Business brings added value as a social-emotional learning program by targeting not only the universal risk factors, rooted in cognitive and emotional development, but also the individual factors, rooted in particular school culture.
In phase two, we document and quantify reductions in the “risk factors” identified in phase one, over successive years of intervention. As we continue to collect data from school districts across country, we are able to observe how school climates change over time, as Risky Business training takes deeper root in the school culture. The change process is not “all or none,” but a series of ministeps. While we have already documented program effectiveness using pre- and post-test measures as well as anecdotal reports of teachers and school administrators, we now have repeated measures in some of our districts that provide evidence of lasting improvements in the school atmosphere over time.
We understand that the Risky Business method is more advanced in construction and design than most interventions. This is because it effects and measures CHANGES IN SCHOOL CLIMATE OVER TIME. The school culture is what we are measuring; not individual students. The social skill development that we introduce to the individual students, promoted in the curriculum, is a “transmission tool.” Students are the “agents of change” not the change itself. The outcome is the result of a process which is not static and might look quite different at different points in time. When we target changing individual students in an intervention, the gains leave the school building with that student. On the other hand, when we target the school culture through a systematic process of social re-norming, the change is long lasting. New students enter a different environment.
This concept is rather sophisticated but it corresponds to what we see in the real world when effecting change. Following are some real-life examples of cultural change we have encountered in our work with schools.
Example 1: In a middle school in a major urban district, a very enlightened principal tells this story. Trying to clean up her school, she began a program last year that involved both students and faculty in a school-wide effort. The intervention was effective and the building was much cleaner by June. In evaluating her objectives for the coming year, she decided to drop the program because it was time consuming and she did not have the needed resources to support it. She was stunned to learn that the following year, having done NOTHING, the school was cleaner than ever! She was intrigued by the notion of igniting a potential in students, who then change the culture, which in turn influences future generations of students who are no longer “standing in the same river” as their pre-intervention peers. This kind of change is the “gift that keeps on giving.” Changes in school culture, if not deliberately monitored, can also have inadvertent negative effects.
Example 2: Our most underserved middle and high schools on the West Coast are complaining of skyrocketing violence and they do not know what to do to stop it. It is not drugs, terrorism or anything of the like that seems to be the source of their problem. What we are hearing from top administrators is that the culprit is No Child Left Behind! As a result of the failure of some low performance schools, students are exercising their freedom of choice and crossing neighborhood boundaries to attend other schools, thereby mixing gangs that had been separated before. The result? “War!” Were these “better” schools gang-infested prior to this? Absolutely YES! The gangs functioned harmoniously until this delicate ecological balance in the school culture was upset. The law did not take into account the “process” of effecting change. These districts embrace Risky Business because they realize that to address their violence problems, they have to first systematically address their cultural issues.
BACK TO HOME