Transcript Curry School of Education What Is School Climate and How CanPrevention We Improve It? Bullying Catherine Bradshaw, Ph.D., M.Ed. Professor & Associate Dean for Research, Curry School.

Curry School of Education
What Is School Climate and
How
CanPrevention
We Improve It?
Bullying
Catherine Bradshaw, Ph.D., M.Ed.
Professor & Associate Dean for Research, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia
Deputy Director, Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence (CDC)
Co-Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention & Early Intervention (NIMH)
June 2015
Overview
• What is school climate?
• What can be done to improve it?
– Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
– Integration of programs through MTSS
BullyingisPrevention
What
school climate?
What is school climate?
that support people feeling…
 Norms
 Values
Socially safe
Emotionally safe
Physically safe
 Expectations
(National School Climate Council, 2007)
School Culture
• Unwritten rules and expectations
among members of the school
community (Gruenert, 2008)
Are climate and culture the same thing?
www.naesp.org
Contrasting Climate & Culture
USDOE’s School Climate Framework For
Establishing the Conditions for Learning
School Climate
Engagement
Connection to
Teachers
Student
Connectedness
School
Connectedness
Academic
Engagement
Safety
Environment
Perceived
Safety
Physical
Comfort/
Maintenance
Bullying &
Aggression
Rules &
Consequences
General Drug
Use
Support
Disorder
Culture of
Equity
Parent
Engagement
(Adapted version of USDOE School Climate Model, N=25,000 Bradshaw et al., 2014)
School Climate at ____ School
School Climate
Engagement
Safety
Environment
How do you measure
school climate?
• Surveys
–
–
–
–
Students
Staff/teachers
Administrators
Parents
• Observations
– Classroom
– Non-classroom settings
• Administrative data
– Suspensions
– Attendance
– Academic performance
MDS3 School Climate
(31 high schools, N = 14,150)
Safety
•
•
•
•
•
81.0% feel safe at school
22.4% reported being bullied during the school year
41.0% reported that other students try to stop bullying
21.5% often or very often feel sad
81.6% reported that substance use is a problem at their school
Engagement
•
•
•
•
66.5% feel they belong at school
80.2% feel their teachers encourage them to work hard
45.0% feel their parents are informed when they do well
60.9% feel students of all races are treated equally
Environment
• 73.7% report that disruptions in the classroom get in the way of learning
• 47.3% report the school building is clean and well-maintained
• 68.4% report that students who need help with their problems are able to
get it at school
Importance of multiple
perspectives
Detecting and Intervening
in Bullying Situations
Adults….
•Have difficulty recognizing bullying
•Fail to recognize the importance of intervening
•Uncertain how best to intervene
– Adults often don’t know how best to intervene in bullying, especially with
special populations (LGBT, racial/ethnic minority, overweight youth)
•Lack time
Students….
• Rarely report bullying to adults
•
Just 21% of students involved in bullying had reported the event to a school staff
member
Student vs. Staff Perceptions
15,185 STUDENTS
 Seen adults at school watching
bullying and doing nothing
– 43%
 Believe adults at their school are
NOT doing enough to stop or prevent
bullying
– 58%
1,547 STAFF
 Said they would intervene
if they saw bullying
–97%
 Believe have effective
strategies for handling
bullying
–87%
 Believe that teachers who try to stop  Believe they made things
bullying only make it worse
worse when they intervened
– 61%
–7%
(Bradshaw et al., 2007, SPR)
Stereotypes of Youth Who Bully
(Source: Sue Swearer)
Administrator Walk-through Tool
ts- Walk both the
d staff parking
School Grounds- Walk the perimeter of the school
buildings.
LOOK FOR
Are there signs clearly posted to
indicate the entrance to the school
grounds?
What is the condition of the
landscaping around the building?
RESULTS
YES
NO
No landscaping
Not maintained
Maintained
Well-maintained
Count evidence of school-ownership.
Look for things with the school name
or logo prominently displayed.
None
1-3
3 or more
Count graffiti. This includes gang or
other self-promoting tags as well as
profanity.
None
1-7
8 or more
Count vandalism. Look for things that
you believe have been intentionally
broken or bent.
None
1-7
8 or more
Count trash.
About 1 or less grocery bags
About 2 grocery bags
About 3 or more grocery bags
Count bottles or cans that once
contained alcohol.
None
1 or more
Count evidence of school-ownership.
Look for things with the school name
or logo prominently displayed.
None
1 or more
Count graffiti. This includes gang or
other self-promoting tags as well as
profanity.
None
1-7
8 or more
Count trash.
None or a few pieces
About 1 grocery bag
ACTION PLAN
Links between Climate and Student Behavior:
Less Problematic Behavior
•
•
•
•
fewer discipline problems (Cohen & Geier, 2010)
less aggressive and violent behavior (Gregory et al., 2010)
fewer suspensions (Lee et al., 2011)
fewer problems with absence and lateness (Gottfredson et
al., 2005)
• lower levels of alcohol and drug use (LaRusso et al., 2008)
• less bullying (Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Bradshaw et
al., 2009) and harassment (Attar-Schwartz, 2009)
Links between Climate and Student Behavior:
Improved Prosocial Behavior
• Higher student academic motivation and engagement
(Eccles et al., 1993; Thapa et al., 2013)
• Elevated psychological well-being (Ruus et al., 2007;
Shochet et al., 2006)
• Improved academic achievement (Brand et al., 2003;
Stewart, 2008)
How Does School Climate Impact
Teachers?
• Disruptive and aggressive behaviors are the most common
reasons for office referrals and suspensions (Irvin et al., 2006; Pas,
Bradshaw, & Mitchell, 2011; Walker et al., 1996)
• Bullying and other behavior problems create conditions that
negatively impact the school and learning (Bradshaw et al., 2009; Jimerson et
al., 2000; Swearer et al., 2010)
• Discipline problems contribute to teacher and staff
burnout and turnover (Pas, Bradshaw, & Hershfeldt, 2011)
• Particular concern in secondary schools (Bradshaw et al., 2007)
- Relatively few evidence-based programs (Greenberg et al., 2001)
Role of Administrators in Promoting
School Climate: Impacts on Teachers
• When educators feel supported by their administration,
they report higher levels of commitment and more
collegiality
• Educators who openly communicate with one another,
feel supported by their peers and administration, and
establish strong student-educator relationships tend to
have better student academic and behavioral outcomes
• School climate efforts can also increase job satisfaction
and teacher retention.
(Brown & Medway, 2007; Singh & Billingsley, 1998)
Cause or
Consequence?
• Is school climate the cause or consequence of
academic success and thriving behavior?
• How do we tease apart the behavioral and
perceptual indicators?
Climate
Behavior
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Schools As a Stress Buffer?
What Is Stress?
• Appraisal-based
– “relationship between the person and the environment
that is appraised as taxing or exceeding his/her
resources and endangering his/her wellbeing” (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984)
• Objective-based
– “environmental events or chronic conditions that
objectively threatened the physical and/or
psychological health or wellbeing…” (Grant et al., 2003)
(Spenser et al., 2006)
Stress Process: From Stress to Distress
Appraisal
Stressor
Goals
Prior
Experience
Coping
Efforts
Adjustment/
Maladjustment
Yerkes-Dodson Law (1908)
Link between Stress
& Health
• Correlates of stress
– Psychological distress & psychiatric disorders (Thoits,
1981)
• Most episodes of depression preceded by major life event
(Brown & Harris, 1978; Nazroo, 2001)
– Lower productivity
• Academic/work performance, accidents, injuries,
socioeconomic status
– Poorer physical health (Jemmot & Locke, 1984)
• Overall health, upper respiratory problems, allergies,
hypertension, heart disease, cancer
(Turner & Wheaton)
Baltimore, MD
Diathesis Stress Model
– Hypersensitivity to stress
• Easily ignited
• Repeated exposure to stress and multiple risk factors lowers
threshold
(Hankin & Abela, 2005)
Diathesis Stress Model
Stress Gets Under the Skin
• Neurobiology
– Genetic, neurochemistry, brain development
– Adverse childhood experiences
– Allostatic load
Summary of Impact
of Stress on the
Body & Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
Process information
Make decisions
Interact with others
Respond to subsequent stressors
Attention, focus, and persistence
Reactive Disciplinary Approaches
•
•
•
•
•
Suspension
Punishment
Office disciplinary referrals
Group ‘deviant’ kids together
Zero-tolerance policies
–
–
–
–
–
Don’t provide replacement skills
May reinforce problem behavior
Disproportionately used
No evidence of effectiveness
May do more harm than good
(APA, 2008; Skiba & Peterson, 1999; Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013)
Schools As Buffers
• Supportive school environment and
caring adults can buffer individual,
family, and community risks
– Supports for all students & staff
– Trauma-informed approaches
– Tiered interventions
What can be done to
Bullying Prevention
improve school climate?
Positive Behavioral
Interventions & Supports (PBIS)
• Multi-tiered System of Supports
• Non-curricular, school-wide tiered prevention
system
– Focuses on improving systems (e.g., reinforcement)
and practices (e.g., evidence-based programs)
through data-based decision making
• Applies a public health approach
– 80% of student population respond to universal
intervention; 20% need additional services
PBIS in Park Heights
PBIS Model: Whole-school Prevention
• Application of behavioral, social learning, &
organizational behavioral principles
– Clear behavioral expectations (e.g., ready, responsible, and respectful)
– Positive reinforcement
– Procedures for consistently managing disruptions
OUTCOMES
PRACTICES
(Horner & Sugai, 2001; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai & Horner, 2006)
A Multi-tiered System of Supports:
A Public Health Approach to Prevention
Indicated or Intensive
Intervention
Individualized, functional
assessment, highly
specific for few
Universal Prevention
Core Instruction,
all students,
preventive, proactive
Selective or Targeted
Intervention
Supplemental, some
students, reduce risk
Students within Schools
(IOM, 2009; Walker et al., 1996)
Maryland’s PBIS Organizational Model
School Level
Student
– 987 PBIS Teams (one per school) ≈ 71%
• Team leaders (one per school)
• Behavior Support Coaches (≈ 560)
District Level (24)
– District Coordinators
State Level
– State Leadership Team
•
•
•
•
•
•
Classroom
School
District
State
Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE)
Sheppard Pratt Health System
Johns Hopkins University
24 Local school districts
Department of Juvenile Services, Mental Hygiene Administration
University of Maryland
– Management Team
– Advisory Group
National Level
– National PBIS Technical Assistance Center
• University of Oregon, University of Connecticut, & University of Missouri
(Barrett, Bradshaw & Lewis-Palmer, 2008; Bradshaw & Pas, 2011; Bradshaw et al., 2012)
In 1999…
“Tough Times —
Tough
Kids”
initial
workshop
for PBIS
Dr. George Sugai
University of Oregon
In 2002…
PBIS Maryland
Center for the Prevention
of Youth Violence
Number of Schools
Number of MD PBIS Trained Schools by Year
Year
Research on PBIS
Funding
Project Target
• Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (PI: Leaf)
• National Institute of Mental Health (PIs: Leaf & Bradshaw)
• Institute of Education Sciences (PI: Bradshaw)
Sample
• 37 voluntary elementary schools across 5 school districts
– Enrollment 227-983; 60% Caucasian; 48% suburban; 41% urban fringe; 49% Title I
Design
• Group randomized effectiveness trial
• 21 PBIS & 16 “Focus/Comparison”
• Baseline plus 4 years (spring 2002 - spring 2007)
• Data from 29,423 students & 3,563 staff
(Bradshaw et al., 2008; 2009; 2010; 2012)
SET: PBIS Implementation Fidelity
Notes. SET = School-wide Evaluation Tool (Sugai et al., 1994) No significant differences between groups at baseline, but
differences at all other years at p<.05. Overall SET score: Wilks’ Λ = .38, F (4,32) = 13.36, p <.001, partial η2 = .63, d =
3.22. (Bradshaw, Reinke et al., ETC, 2007)
Effect of PBIS on Overall OHI
3.50
Comparison
PBIS
Overall OHI
3.25
*
Sig. change (.05)
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
0
1
2
3
Study Year
Note. Adjusted means from 3-level model. * Intervention effect on slope of overall OHI significant at p<.05.
4
Effect of PBIS on Collegial Leadership
Collegial Leadership
3.50
Sig. difference (.05)
3.25
*
*
3.00
2.75
Comparison
PBIS
2.50
2.25
0
1
2
Study Year
3
Note. Adjusted means from 3-level model. * Intervention effect on slope of overall OHI significant at p<.05.
Note. Adjusted means from 3-level model. * Intervention effect on slope significant at p<.05.
4
PBIS Effects
on School Climate
• PBIS associated with significant improvements in
staff members’ report of school climate
•
•
•
•
principal leadership
collegial relationships
academic emphasis
resource influence
(Bradshaw, et al., SPQ, 2008; Bradshaw et al. Prevention Science, 2009)
Link between Climate &
Implementation
• Where the schools started off predicted
how much they improved
• Schools with less favorable school climate at
baseline tended to take longer to reach high fidelity,
but improved the most
(Bradshaw, et al., SPQ, 2008; Bradshaw et al. Prevention Science, 2009)
Impacts of PBIS
on Student Outcomes
• Significant reduction in school-level suspensions
among the PBIS schools (dropped by 1/3)
• Students in PBIS schools were 32% less likely to
receive an office discipline referral
• A positive effect for school-level Maryland
School Assessment academic performance (Bradshaw
et al., JPBI, 2010)
Impacts of PBIS
on Student Outcomes
• Teacher-rated behavior problems
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rejection & bullying
Concentration problems
Aggressive/disruptive behavior
Prosocial behavior
Emotion regulation
Service use (e.g., counseling, office referrals)
• PBIS effects are strongest the earlier students are exposed
to PBIS
• Effects strongest for higher risk students
(Bradshaw et al., 2012; Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2012)
PBISplus Trial
Primary Grant Support
~5%
~15%
• Institute of Education Sciences (Leaf & Bradshaw)
Aims
•
•
•
•
•
Address needs of PBIS “non-responders”
Increase use of evidence-based programs
Reduce inappropriate referrals to special education
Reduce behavior problems & improve achievement
Reduce disproportionality
~80% of Students
Approach
Provide training, support, and on-site technical assistance (coaching) to student
support teams (SSTs) and staff regarding:
•
•
•
•
Simplified functional behavioral assessment and “function-based thinking”
Evidence-based programs
Effective teaming and collaborative problem-solving
Cultural competency & culturally appropriate interventions
PBISplus Research Design
• Group randomized controlled trial design (Murray, 1998)
• 42 PBIS schools
• 20 “PBISplus” Condition
• 22 “SWPBIS” Comparison/Control Condition
• All schools previously trained in tier 1 SWPBIS
• 29,569 students and 3,202 staff
(Bradshaw, Pas, Goldweber, Rosenberg, & Leaf, 2012)
Summary of Significant Tier 2 Findings
• Staff Efficacy to Manage Behavior Problems
• PBISplus schools had greater improvements in efficacy whereas SWPBIS
schools remained flat across time (Coef = .02, p = .05).
• Student-level receipt of classroom-based
behavioral services
• Students in the PBISplus schools were less likely to receive these services
than those SWPBIS schools (AOR = 0.79, p = .03).
• Teacher reports of special education service
receipt
• Fewer students received special education services in the PBISplus schools
than in the SWPBIS schools (Coef = -.59, p = .03).
•
Teacher ratings of achievement
• PBISplus students had significantly higher achievement than students in
SWPBIS schools (Coef =.02, p = .05)
Overview of MDS3
Initiative
• One of 11 states funded through the US Department of
Education’s Safe and Supportive Schools Initiative
• Project Aims
– Reduce rates of school violence and substance use, and
improve student engagement and the school environment to
support student learning
– Develop a sustainable web-based survey system for assessing
school climate
– Implement a continuum of evidence-based programs to meet
student needs
• 58 high schools over 4 years
– Random assignment to intervention vs. comparison
USDOE’s School Climate Framework For
Establishing the Conditions for Learning
School Climate
Engagement
Connection to
Teachers
Student
Connectedness
School
Connectedness
Academic
Engagement
Safety
Environment
Perceived
Safety
Physical
Comfort/
Maintenance
Bullying &
Aggression
Rules &
Consequences
General Drug
Use
Support
Disorder
Culture of
Equity
Parent
Engagement
(Adapted version of USDOE School Climate Model, N=25,000 Bradshaw et al., 2014)
MDS3 Menu of
Evidence-Based Programs
• Overall Framework
• Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to reduce discipline
problems and improve school climate
• Tier 1
• Botvin’s Life Skills Program for substance abuse prevention
• Olweus Bullying Prevention Program to prevent bullying
• Tier 2
• Check-In/Check-Out to increase student engagement and attendance
• Check & Connect to prevent truancy and increase student engagement
• Tier 3
• Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools for students
with emotional and behavioral problems
Annual MDS3
Data Collection
• Fidelity
– School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET)
– Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SSET)
• School Observations of School Climate
– Trained external observers
• MDS3 School Climate Surveys
– Parents, staff, and students
Application of Social Disorganization
Theory to Schools
MDS3 Observational Study
• W.T. Grant Foundation (Bradshaw, PI)
• 4 data points, over 3 years
– 2 data collectors (1 ASSIST & 1 SAfETy)
– 25 classrooms per school (≈1500 per time point)
– 30+ non-classroom locations
• Generalizability study in 6 schools
• Using handhelds to collect data
• Instruments
– Assessing School Settings: Interactions of Students & Teachers
(ASSIST): Rusby et al. (2001); Cash, Debnam, & Bradshaw
• Praise, opportunities to respond, punishing statements, transitions,
supervision, positive interactions, engagement, aggressive behavior etc.
• Both event based and global ratings
– School Assessment for Environmental Typology (SAfETy):
Bradshaw, Lindstrom Johnson, Milam, Debnam, & Furr-Holden
• Features of the school environment that encourage access control,
surveillance, territoriality, physical maintenance, and behavioral
management (e.g., disorder, substance use, broken windows)
Classroom Observations (15-Minute Segments)
14
Observations of Teacher
Behaviors in Classrooms
# of Behaviors
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Proactive Behavior Opportunities to
Management
Respond
(Range 0 - 28)
(Range 0 - 90)
• 89% of classrooms
were rated as
having the majority
of students on task
• 61% of classrooms
were rated as
having a shared
positive affect
among teachers and
students
Physical Environment of the Schools
Broken Lights
Graffiti
Trash
Promoted healthy eating
Displayed Student Work
Posted negative
behavioral expectations
Posted positive behavioral
expectations
0%
20%
40%
60%
Percent of Observed Locations
80%
Impacts of PBIS in
High Schools
• General improving trend for all schools
• Significant improvements for intervention
schools
–
–
–
–
–
weapon carrying
being threatened or injured by a weapon
skipping school because a fear for safety
marijuana use
engagement
(Bradshaw et al., 2014; Adolescent Psychiatry)
Tiered Instructional and Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports (PBIS) Framework
Response to
Intervention
(MSDE, 2008)
Integrating PBIS and Social and
Emotional Learning
(Bradshaw, Bottiani, Osher, & Sugai, 2014)
Integrating PBIS with…
• Double Check Cultural Proficiency & Student
Engagement Model (IES & Spencer; Bradshaw)
• Develop school-wide and classroom–based program to reduce
disproportionality in PBIS elementary and middle schools
• Disproportionality is the over- or under-representation of a particular
demographic group in special education, gifted education programs, and
discipline data relative to the overall student population (NABE, 2002)
• Components
• School-Wide PBIS is foundation
• Double Check Professional Development Series
• Classroom Check-Up (Reinke et al., 2008) coaching system
Double Check
Framework
• Emphasizes culturally
proficient instruction
and classroom
management
– 18 school RCT
– 30 school RCT
(Bottiani, Bradshaw, Rosenberg et al.,
2012; Hershfeldt et al., 2009)
The Classroom Check-Up
Step 1
• Teacher Interview
• Teacher Completes Ecology Checklist
Step 2
• Coach Conducts Classroom Visits
Step 3
• Personalized Feedback Session
• Develop Menu of Options
Step 4
• Collaborative Goal Setting
Step 5
• Teacher Monitors Daily Implementation
• Coach Provides Continued Support
Reinke et al., 2008
Prevention of Bullying and Violence in
Baltimore City Middle Schools
• Coping Power Program (Lochman & Wells)
– Group-based intervention for youth and parents
– Alters social-cognitive factors
• 8 Baltimore City middle schools
– Tailored to address family through the Family Check-up (Dishion et al.)
– School-wide Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (Olweus et al.)
– Linkage with City’s CeaseFire Initiative (Webster & Leaf)
• Support: CDC Youth Violence Prevention Center & NIMH Center for Prevention
& Early Intervention
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive, school-wide program
Aims to reduce and prevent bullying problems
Improve peer relations at school
Designed for all students
Preventive and responsive
Focused on changing norms and restructuring
the school setting
Tier 3 Prevention
• Evidence-based program shown to reduce:
• Aggressive behavior
• fighting and harming others
• Delinquent behavior
• theft, assault, property destruction, fraud, drug selling
• Tobacco, alcohol, and drug use
(Lochman & Wells, 2002; Lochman et al., 2013)
• 30 School Trial
– Maryland, Alabama
• Components
– 24 lessons for students
– 10 sessions for parents
– Individual supports for
students and teachers
Middle School
Coping Power
Project
Summary of Lessons Learned
• Start with tier 1 supports
• Identify climate and student behavior as
school-wide goals
• Data use
• Communication efforts
• Integration is critical
• Youth voice
• Implementation science
• Skills and approaches of an effective coach
• Importance of a strong leadership team and
administrator support
(Bradshaw et al., 2014; Adolescent Psychiatry)
Takeaways
• MTSS (e.g., positive behavior support)
– is a process and a framework, not a program
– it impacts a range of outcomes, including behavioral, mental
health, academic, and school climate
– serves as a organizational structure for implementing other
EBPs (with higher fidelity) and guiding decision-making
• Need to consider culture and context for effective and
sustainable change
Acknowledgements
Johns Hopkins
• Phil Leaf
• Katrina Debnam
• Elise Pas
• Tracy Waasdorp
• Sarah Lindstrom Johnson
• Michael Rosenberg
• Nick Ialongo
• Tina Cheng
• Adam Milam
• Qing Zheng
Maryland State Department of Education
•
Milt McKenna
•
Andrea Alexander
•
Kristina Kyles
Sheppard Pratt Health System
•
Susan Barrett
•
Patti Hershfeldt
•
Jerry Bloom
Anne Arundel County Public Schools
•
Ginny Dolan
•
Kathy Lane
•
Lucia Martin
Supported by NIMH (1R01MH67948-1A, P30 MH08643), CDC (1U49CE 000728 &
K01CE001333-01), IES (R324A07118, R305A090307, R324A110107 , R305A140070),
USDOE, WT Grant Foundation, Spencer Foundation, NIJ