Transcript Document

Meeting the Needs of Students with
Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities
within a Culturally Responsive MultiLevel System of Support
Dana McConnell
Kathy Ryder
Outcomes for the Session
 Reflection on current practices
 Understanding of benefits for ALL students
and staff
 Strategies to meet the diverse needs of our
students
 Next steps in moving forward
We Know…….
 To improve the academic success of
our children, we must also improve
their social success.
 Academic and social failures are
reciprocally and inextricably related.
Power of PBIS
“Viewed as outcomes, achievement and behavior are
related; viewed as causes of each other, achievement
and behavior are unrelated. In this context, teaching
behavior as relentlessly as we teach reading or other
academic content is the ultimate act of prevention,
promise, and power underlying PBIS and other
preventive interventions in America’s schools.”
Algozzine, Wang, & Violette (2011, p. 16)
What do we know about school discipline
referrals and SWD?
 Students with disabilities tend to be over-
represented in school discipline (Cooley, 1995, Fabelo
et al., 2011; Kresmien, Leone, & Achilles, 2006; Rausch % Skiba, 2006; SRI
International, 2006; Zhang, Katsiyannus, & Herbst, 2004).
What we know about students
with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities
 Disengaged from school/family/community
 Most likely disability group to be educated in
a segregated setting
 Highest rates of disciplinary infractions
 Perceived by teachers as having significantly
lower levels of social competence and school
adjustment (Lane, Carter, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006)
Educational Outcomes for Students
w/Disabilities
 Students w/disabilities are almost 2X as likely to
be suspended from school as nondisabled students,
with the highest rates among black children with
disabilities.
 13% of students w/ disabilities in kindergarten
through 12th grade were suspended during the
2009-10 school year, compared to 7% of students
without disabilities. (Department of Ed.; The New York Times, August 7,
2012)
Educational Outcomes for Students with
EBD
 40-60% drop out of high school (Wagner, 1991, 1996; Wagner,
Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein, 2005)
 Experience poorer academic performance than
Students with SLD (Lane, Carter, Pierson & Glaeser, 2006)
 10-25% enroll in post-secondary education
(compared to 53% of typical population) (Bullis & Cheney,
1999)
Post-Secondary Outcomes
for Students with EBD
 High rates of unemployment/underemployment post-
school (Bullis & Cheney, 1999; Kortering, Hess & Braziel, 1996, Wagner 1991; Wehman,
1996)
 Experience longer delays in obtaining employment
 lower percentage of employment
 lower employment rates overall
 Hold more short-term jobs
 More likely to be employed part-time and earn less
than other students with or without other disabilities.
(Wagner, D’Amico, Marder, Newman, & Blackorby 1992)
Post-Secondary Outcomes
for Students with EBD
 High rates of mental health challenges, poverty, and
incarceration (Alexander, et al., 1997; Kortering, et al., Lee and Burkham, 1992,
Wagner 1992)
 Compared to students with or without other disabilities,
three to five years after leaving school.
(National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students- OSEP, 1994)







Lower rates of marriage
Higher rates of pregnancy
Lower rates of employment
Lower earning rates
Lower rates of registering to vote or voting
Higher rates of arrests- 58% of students with EBD had been arrested
at some time during those three to five years.
Low rates of living independently
Staff Attitudes toward Students with
Disabilities
 Educators who have negative attitudes toward students
with disabilities tend to expect low achievement and
inappropriate behavior from those students. (Beattie, Anderson, &
Antonak, 1997)
 Negative attitudes and actions of others can negatively
affect the behavior, social relationships, education,
employment, and health of individuals with disabilities
(Yuker, 1994)
 Students with disabilities experience more rejection by
peers than do students without disabilities (Heinrichs, 2003).
Beliefs about working with students with
EBD . . .
 Teachers indicated they felt stressed when working with
students with disabilities because they did not possess
knowledge, or feel competent (Forlin, 2001)
 Both special education and general education teachers
indicated they received little to no pre-service training
related to effective inclusion for students with disabilities.
 In fact, Special education teachers reported receiving less
training in this area than did general education teachers.
(Pavri, 2004)
Why School-wide PBIS?
“For the majority of general educators, fidelity to the
process of PBIS implementation will be most critical at
the primary prevention level of intervention,
including:
School-wide
 Classroom
 Non-classroom settings

Because the majority of students they will encounter
will not be at-risk or have an elevated risk of antisocial behavior. (Walker, et. al. 1996)
Why PBIS for Students with EBD?
To implement PBIS as a continuum and with fidelity……
Teachers of students with the most challenging behaviors or
displaying signs of antisocial behavior patterns, need to carry out
the process of PBIS with fidelity comprehensively, or at all three
levels of prevention.
These levels of prevention include:
 The structure and process of Functional Behavioral Assessment
 Data-based decision making
 Individual response to intervention systems
 De-escalation of behavior events
 Linking community supports to families and youth needs
 Self- monitoring
 Behavioral measurement (Walker et. al, 1996)
Historical Development of PBIS
 During the 1980s, a need was identified for improved
selection, implementation, and documentation of effective
behavioral interventions for students with EBD. (Greshan, 1991;
Sugai & Horner, 1999; Walker et al., 1996)
 Researchers at the University of Oregon began a series of
applied demonstrations, research studies, and evaluation
projects.
 Reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 – received a grant to
establish the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports to disseminate and provide technical
assistance to schools on evidence based practices for
improving supports for students with EBD.
Historical Development of PBIS cont’d
 Results: greater attention directed toward prevention,
research-based practices, data-based decision making,
school-wide systems, explicit social skills instruction, teambased implementation and professional development. (Sugai
& Horner, 2002; Horner, Sugai, Anderson, 2010)
 PBIS is the marriage of behavioral theory, behavioral
analysis, positive behavior supports, and prevention and
implementation science developed to improve how schools
select, organize, implement, and evaluate behavioral
practices in meeting the needs of ALL students.
(Sugai et al, 2000)
Healthy School Culture
“Educators have an unwavering belief in the ability of
all of their students to achieve success, and they pass
that belief on to others in overt and covert ways.
Educators create policies and procedures and adopt
practices that support their belief in the ability of every
student.”
- Kent D. Peterson in Cromwell, 2002.
Cultural Change
“Structural change that is not supported by cultural
change will eventually be overwhelmed by the culture,
for it is in the culture that any organization finds
meaning and stability.”
Schlechty, Shaking Up the Schoolhouse:
How to Support and Sustain Educational Innovation (2001), p. 52
School System Culture and Beliefs
 What is the culture of your building?

Is there a belief that students identified as having an
Emotional/Behavioral Disability should be included in our
school-wide system/data?

Is there a negative view of students with disabilities?

Is there a view of students with EBD should be taught in a
separate classroom?
 Are you ALL working towards the same mission?
 What are your non-negotiable strategies and
practices to be used in order to reach your vision?
Data Audit
*Behavior Data
*ODRs per day per mo.
*By behavior
*By time of day
*By location
*By infraction
*Other including M/m
*Group, etc.
*Attendance
*EE or LRE
*Detentions
*Suspensions I/O
*Expulsions
*Academic data per
group/individual
*Etc.
Think about this……..
 Academics:
CCSS,
CCEE = Smarter Balanced
 Behavior:
Behavior
Matrix = ODR’s
MYTH:
We can’t include SWD in our data!
 SWD will skew our data
 We have this one kid who . . .
 We will look bad when we present data to the School
Board
 If we keep track of every thing he/she does, that’s all
we would have time to do
 Others?
Reflect on Current Practices
 What are your current practices for teaching behavioral
expectations?

What about for students with disabilities?

Are ‘beliefs’ reflected in actual practice?

Where is the re-teaching and practice for students with EBD happening?

Included in general education, separate classroom, or not happening at all?
 Do you have the same behavioral expectations for your
students with disabilities?

Are the expectations/IEP goals linked back to school-wide expectations?
 Are students with disabilities included in your school-wide
discipline data?

If so, how are you using this data?
ACTIVITY: Think-Pair-Share
 Reflect on your current practices:

What is the belief and school culture about students with EBD in
your school?

How are you connecting students with EBD IEP goals and support
with your school-wide expectations?

How are you including students with EBD in your data collection
system?
 At the system level AND individual level?
How do you disaggregate your data?
 Are you disaggregating at the systems level?
 What about at the program/intervention level?
 Are you looking at the effects and impacts at each
level, including student level?
Resources:
www.wisconsinpbisnetwork.org/assets/files/resources/1359755675_DisaggregationOfDataInPBIS.pdf
http://www.wisconsinpbisnetwork.org/assets/files/resources/1375899857_RiskRatioCalculator.xlsm
Main Ideas cont’d
• Build “decision systems” not “data systems”
• Use data in decision layers
•
•
•
Is there a problem? (i.e. overall rate of ODRs)
Localize the problem (i.e. location, problem behavior,
students, time of day)
Get specific. Do not speak in code
• Do not drown in the data
• It is “Okay” to be doing well
• Be efficient
Main Ideas cont’d
• Do we have a problem?
• Refine the description of the problem?
•
What behavior, Who, Where, When, Why
• Analyze the behavior- Check your filter
• Test hypotheses
•
•
•
“I think the problem on the playground is due to Eric”
“ We think the lunch period is too long”
“We believe the end of ‘block schedule” is used poorly”
• Define how to monitor if solution is effective
ALL Students
“Equality means we don’t find a place for her; we
make this the place for her.” (Rob Horner, 2013)
 The single largest reason:
students are moved
social behavior
teachers leave
social behavior
Key Concept
Put outcomes for
students with IEP’s
into the context of
schools as systems to
educate and support
ALL students.
System Level Supports Snapshot
 Universal
 Teaching the expected school-wide behaviors to ALL
 Selected/Tier II
 CICO = Check-in/Check-out
 SAIG = Social Academic Instruction Group
 Simple FBA/BIP = Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior
Intervention Plan
 Intensive/Tier III
 Complex FBA/BIP
 RENEW/WRAP
Supports for students with EBD
within Your PBIS Framework
 Addressing known behaviors up front

Prepping for the start of the year

Scheduling pre-teaching and practice times

Prepping all staff on how to handle individual student behavior
plans
 Hold them to the standards

Differentiate when needed. An IEP is NOT a pass for lower
expectations.
 Provide the above and beyond
Supports for students with EBD
within Your PBIS Framework
 Teaching replacement behaviors

How are you identifying behavior that needs to be replaced?

How is the replacement behavior being practiced for mastery?

How is this incorporated as part of your system processes?

How is this being used within your system BEFORE a referral or
identification of EBD?
 Teaching de-escalation techniques- to students and
staff
Transition from an Alternate
Environment back to General Education
 Transfer of skills
 Goals and decision rules are linked back to system
expectations (behavior matrix)
 Use of data to determine effectiveness

Links back to school-wide expectations
 Once identified as having an Emotional/Behavioral
Disability:

Consider the skills that qualified the student for special
education and how that connects back to the school-wide
expectations
ACTIVITY: Think-Pair-Share
 Reflect on your systems level supports:
Are they effective with students in your school?
 How do you know?
 Are you disaggregating your data?


What levels of support do you have in place?
 What does this look like for students identified as having an
Emotional/Behavioral Disability?

What is the role of your special educators?
 Are they part of the determination of the “inclusion” plans?
Next Steps.
What is your next move?
 Do we have a healthy culture?
 If not, then what?
 If so, what’s next?
 Identify where effective practices are already
occurring.

Are expectations for students with disabilities an extension of
the system or is it something ‘separate’?
 Is your system setup to address challenges/barriers?
 Does coaching exist to support this?
 Do you have non-negotiable practices and strategies?
 What does collaboration look like?
 What professional development opportunities do you have?
Thank you!
QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS?