Do We Need New Norms to Address “The New Normal”?

Many of the districts I’ve been visiting have reported concerns about an increase in negative social–emotional behaviors among students. With this increase in internalizing–externalizing behaviors among students along with concerns of post-pandemic learning loss, districts have faced an increase in referrals related to emotional disturbance (ED) eligibility.

Negative behaviors include:

• Increased rates of anxiety and depression
• More reports of difficulty sleeping
• Increased feelings of isolation and loneliness
• Lowered rates of motivation
• Increased rates of substance use and abuse
• Increased rates of acting-out behaviors in all grades
  

To be specific, in the primary grades, many districts are reporting that students have problems sitting still, exhibit increased levels of inattention, lack understanding of authority, and, for some, are even experiencing toilet-training issues. In older students, districts are reporting higher rates of depression and anxiety, lower motivation for completing schoolwork, an uptick in aggressive behaviors, and an increase in rates of eating disorders. One lead psychologist even expressed it as a “lack of compassion for self and others.”

As recently as 2022, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that “87 percent of public schools reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had negatively impacted student socioemotional development during the 2021–22 school year.”

Is it time to renorm?

The discussions I have had with districts led us to consider the chaos of the past few years and all the resulting changes that have ensued. I’ve found that many districts are asking themselves if their current social–emotional instruments are adequate to address the issues they are facing today. Many people have also asked if we need to restandardize these instruments to reflect a postpandemic environment.

This is actually a complicated question with many moving parts. Essentially, a psychological test may need to be updated when there is a change in the conceptualization of the construct. We need to be aware that in terms of evaluating social–emotional concerns, the concept has not changed nor has it been affected by time passing, the pandemic, or an increase in behaviors. In addition, we need to pay attention to the fact that the Flynn effect is not a factor when it comes to social–emotional constructs.

Many people continue to ask, though, if postpandemic norms would be helpful to identify the students that most need help. I turned to a colleague, a licensed psychologist, to help explain why restandardizing is not always the solution.

“The pandemic has had an effect on us in many ways, with learning and behavior being the areas we are hearing the most about from the schools,” they said. “It is understandable that some may think we should consider renorming tests, but you have to think about what it means to suggest we need to renorm all the tests because of a pandemic or any other traumatic event. We need to first clarify the purpose of norms. Norms refer to the test performance or typical behavior of one or more reference groups. Remember that test norms are a frame of reference for interpreting test scores. They answer the question of how the performance of this test taker compares to that of others. So if we are saying that, because so many students now have behavior issues or have lower or higher scores on some construct than they did pre-COVID and that we now need new norms, we are in essence also saying that all of those kids are now acting in a way that is considered to be the new norm, and that only those who stand out from this new norm crowd warrant intervention or assistance.”

Think of it this way: When you renorm a test, you are essentially saying that these abnormal behaviors are now the new norm. In essence, you have just normalized an abnormal response or behavior. That response or behavior is now part of the normative data rather than something that needs attention or intervention. Remember, we give clinical tests to see if examinees’ scores vary from those of the reference group. If we recognize only those who stand out from the reference group as being in need of assistance, when you use a reference group where the entire group is having difficulty, then very few people are eligible for assistance. If these instruments were renormed to normalize today’s behaviors, it would result in even fewer students receiving the help they need.

This being said, you can be confident that many instruments normed before the pandemic are still a valid way to measure the construct of ED until either the construct changes or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) changes.

Observing trends

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) continues its research today with the School Pulse Panel, a study collecting information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic from a national sample of elementary school, middle school, high school, and combined-grade public schools.

Some survey questions are asked repeatedly to help the NCES observe trends over time, whereas others examine unique topics for just a single month. To find the most recent statistics, check out the publication of the December results, which will represent the last release for the 2022–23 school year. Visit ies.edu.gov/schoolsurvey to learn more about the trends seen throughout the country.

References

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022, July 6). More than 80 percent of U.S. public schools report pandemic has negatively impacted student behavior and socio-emotional development [Press release]. https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/07_06_2022.asp