carl liaupsin & c. michael nelson department of special education and rehabilitation counseling...
TRANSCRIPT
Carl Liaupsin & C. Michael NelsonDepartment of Special Education and
Rehabilitation CounselingUniversity of Kentucky
Positive Behavioral Support Positive Behavioral Support and Delinquency Preventionand Delinquency Prevention
• The Students and the Problem
• A Model for Delinquency Prevention: PBS
• Examples
Agenda
Labels for youth who manifest patterns of antisocial behavior
• Socially maladjusted (exclusion/illogical)• Juvenile delinquent (legal term/adjudicated)• Juvenile offender (age of majority/committed
a legal or status offense)
These labels are not educationally relevant• Do not relate to the characteristics or needs
of the individuals
Risk Factors
• Ethnic minority status
• Aggressive, antisocial behavior
• Difficulties in school
• School failure (including educational disabilities)
• Poverty
• Broken home
• Inadequate parental supervision
• Lax or inconsistent parental discipline
• Coercive family interactions
• Physical abuse• Substance abuse (self or
family)• Living in a high crime
community• Criminal or delinquent
relatives or peers
Where do you findjuvenile offenders?
• Most adjudicated youth are not incarcerated!
• Most youth (80%to90%) report having committed delinquent acts, but few are apprehended and fewer still are arrested.
Where do you findjuvenile offenders?
• General and special education classrooms
• Alternative schools• Day treatment programs• Detention or correctional facilities
Most
Few
How do Schools Respond to Student Behavior Problems?
• A suburban high school with 1400 pupils reported over 2000 office referrals from Sept. to Feb. of one school year
• In 1998-99, 74,565 suspensions and 3,603 expulsions were reported in Kentucky schools
ZERO TOLERANCE FOR UNDESIRED BEHAVIOR!
School Contributions to Problem Behavior
Reactive disciplinary approach Lack of teaching about rules, expectations, &
consequences Lack of staff consistency Failure to consider and accommodate
individual student differences Academic failure
(Mayer, 1995; Sugai & Lewis, 1998; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1996)
Counterproductive Practices in the School
• Quality of instruction for students with behavioral problems is poor (Carr, Taylor, & Robinson, 1991).
• Teachers tend to lack knowledge of special education techniques and assume they will be unable to have an effect on behaviorally challenging students (Pfannenstiel, 1993)
• Educational settings for students with behavior problems tend to focus solely on behavior, to the exclusion of academics (Johns, 1994).
* higher rates of negative interactions with school personnel regardless of their behavior
* higher rates of punitive consequences than their peers
this tends to make behaviors worse
* lower rates academic engaged time with teacher perpetuates cycle of problem behavior(Wehby et al. 1996; Shores et al. 1996)
Student Interactions with the School
Counseling sending problem students to talk to the counselor
Reviews of over studies involving children with the most challenging behaviors (Gottfredson, 1997; Lipsky, 1996) indicate
Punishment reacting to behavior without facilitating success
Psychotherapy sending problem students to talk with psychotherapists
Ineffective Interventions
Students with academic failure and problem behaviors are far more likely to:
- drop out of school- be involved with the corrections system- be single parents- be involved with the social services system- be unemployed- be involved in automobile accidents- use illicit drugs
Predictable Failures
From 8 AM - 3 PM, students with challenging behaviors fail 7 of every 10 academic trials
Nearly half of third graders in New York’s high minority public schools cannot read at all (1996)
Identified poor readers at fourth grade have a .88 probability of remaining a poor reader forever (Adams, 1988)
Schools continue to ignore research on best practice in reading instruction (Carnine, 1998)
increase likelihood of behavior problems
The Academic-BehaviorConnection
Initial Failures Lead to Challenging Behavior
Poverty
Poor Modeling
ReadingDeficits
School Safety Issues
School Exclusion
Life-Long Failure
RISK FACTORS OUTCOMES
Long-Term Predictable Failure
• Students with a history of chronic and pervasive behavioral problems and associated academic deficits are more likely to go to jail than to graduate from high school
• Three years after leaving school, 70% of antisocial youth have been arrested (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995)
• 82% of all crimes are committed by people who have dropped out of school (APA Commission on Youth Violence, 1993)
Poverty Predicts Early Failure
• Children from low income families are far more likely to have print related deficits (Adams, 1988), lower vocabulary skills, and lack of familiarity with following directions (Hart & Risley, 1995)
• Academic problems foster behavior problems(Maguin & Loeber, 1996)
• The quality of instruction for students with behavioral problems is poor (Carr, Taylor, & Robinson, 1991)
Interventions that improve academic performance co-occur with a reduction in the prevalence of delinquency (Maguin & Loeber, 1996)
Kentucky
Grade Level CTBS Predictors R-Square
Grade 3 1. Poverty level .4002. Attendance rate .4323. Number of expulsions .456
Grade 6 1. Poverty level .4582. Attendance rate .5463. Number of suspensions .555
Grade 9 1. Poverty level .5212. Attendance rate .6283. Dropout rate .6464. Enrollment .655
Illinois
• http://206.166.105.35/designation/indicators.htm
Summary of the Problem
So Far• Labels & characteristics• Ineffective School Responses• Need to Predict Problems
– Academic Behavior Connection– Poverty predicts failure
Next• A Model for Prevention: PBS
Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
• Primary Prevention– Prevent initial offending
• Secondary Prevention– Prevent re-offending
• Tertiary Prevention– Ameliorate effects of persistent
offending
• Positive behavior—goal is for students to develop a repertoire of appropriate skills that enable them to participate successfully in a broad range of family, school, and community settings.
• Support—a continuum of strategies provided at the appropriate level of personalization, given the strengths, needs, and preferences of the student and family.
Positive Behavior + Support =
Positive Behavior Support
• A broad range of systemic and individualized strategies for achieving important social and learning outcomes while preventing problem behavior
• An integration of (a) valued outcomes, (b) the science of human behavior, (c) validated procedures, and (d) systems change to enhance quality of life and reduce problem behavior
• Use what works
• Build capacity
• Take responsibility for all students
• Be proactive
• Work smarter
BIG PBS IDEAS
Positive Behavior Support Model
Universal School-Wide Systems of Support
(90% of students)
TargetedClassroom and
Small Group Strategies(7-9% of students)
IntensiveIndividual
Interventions(1-3% of students)
Adapted from George Sugai, 1996
Universal School-Wide Systems of Support
(90% of students)
TargetedClassroom and
Small Group Strategies(7-9% of students)
IntensiveIndividual
Interventions(1-3% of students)
Adapted from George Sugai, 1996
Universal School-Wide Systems of Support
(90% of students)
TargetedClassroom and
Small Group Strategies(7-9% of students)
IntensiveIndividual
Interventions(1-3% of students)
ALL STUDENTS
UNIVERSAL SYSTEMS
•Clear expectations•Teach expectations•Facilitate success
•School-wide data•Rules, routines, and physical arrangements
•Planned and implemented by all adults in school
•Effective instruction•Increased prompts/cues•Pre-correction
•Functional assessment•Effective Interventions•Individuals/small #s
TARGETED INTERVENTIONS
•Key teachers and specialists implement
INTENSIVE PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION
•Wraparound planning•Alternative placements
•Effective instruction•Crisis management plans •Special Education
Positive Behavior Support Modeland Prevention
Universal School-Wide Systems of Support
(90% of students)
TargetedClassroom and
Small Group Strategies(7-9% of students)
IntensiveIndividual
Interventions(1-3% of students)
Adapted from George Sugai, 1996
Universal School-Wide Systems of Support
(90% of students)
TargetedClassroom and
Small Group Strategies(7-9% of students)
IntensiveIndividual
Interventions(1-3% of students)
Adapted from George Sugai, 1996
Universal School-Wide Systems of Support
(90% of students)
TargetedClassroom and
Small Group Strategies(7-9% of students)
IntensiveIndividual
Interventions(1-3% of students)
Tertiary
Secondary
Primary
• ElementsRules
agreed upon by team - willing/able to enforceposted, brief, positively stated
Routinesavoid problem contexts, times, groupings, etc.
consistent
Arrangementsclear physical boundariessupervision of all areas
Universal Interventions:Primary Prevention
Social skills training teach specific skills using effective instruction
Reviews of over studies involving children with the most challenging behaviors (Gottfredson, 1997; Lipsky, 1996) indicate
Academic curricular restructuring intensive instruction in reading
Behaviorally based intervention effective use of reinforcement/punishment to facilitate success
Targeted InterventionsSecondary Prevention
Intensive InterventionsTertiary Prevention
Elements• planning for involvement of community
resources as necessary
• in-depth and continuous assessment from a variety of sources and perspectives
• write activities into formal plans where necessary (IEP)
Summary of the Model
In This Section:
• Prevention of juvenile offending
• Positive Behavioral Support
• Primary/Universal
• Secondary/Targeted
• Tertiary/Intensive
Now:
• Examples
EXAMPLE Teaching Behavior
• Hands and feet to self or
• Respect others
• 2+2 = 4
Behavior: Peer Relations
Academic Skill: Addition
EXAMPLE Teachable Expectations
1. Respect Yourself -in the classroom (do your best) -on the playground (follow safety rules)
2. Respect Others -in the classroom (raise your hand to speak) -in the stairway (single file line)
3. Respect Property -in the classroom (ask before borrowing) -in the lunchroom (pick up your mess)
Example:KY KIDS Schools
Project
66% reduction in office referrals 64% reduction in suspensions and
expulsions
EXAMPLE Harrison School-Wide Objectives
• By the end of the year, number of referrals to SAFE will be reduced by at least 30% across all students
• By the end of the year, number of suspensions will be reduced by at least 30% across all students and minority students
• By the end of the year, reading scores will increase across each grade and across the school
Time Spent Away from Academics Due to Behavior
Convert Data from number of hours
To “Average Hours”
(standardizes data for comparisons)
61%
776.8 additional instructional hours
Student Days: School Suspension
76% 75%65%
CTBS Scores
Reading
Language
Math
21 19 27 42% 21 20 30 50% 26 20 30 50%
Academics: Baseline - Year 1
05
101520253035404550
Baseline 1997
Baseline 1998
Intervention1999
Reading
Language
Math
1997 1998 1999 % Baseline Baseline Intervention Change
Summary
• The Problem
• Prevention and Positive Behavioral Supports
• Examples
Acknowledgements
George Sugai Hill Walker
Rob Horner Jeff Sprague
Ron Nelson Glen Dunlap
Tim Lewis Randy Sprick
Geoff Colvin Terry Scott
OSEP Center for Education, Disabilities, and Juvenile Justice
www.edjj.org
• University of Maryland
• University of Kentucky
• Arizona State University
• Eastern Kentucky University
• PACER Center
• American Institutes of Research
OSEP Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support
http:www.pbis.org
• University of Oregon
• University of Kentucky
• University of Missouri
• University of Kansas
• University of South Florida
Job OpportunitiesDiscussion ForumsBehavioral InterventionsLinks to Other ResourcesBehavioral ConsultationLegal InformationMore . . .
Sponsored by The University of Kentucky and the Kentucky Dept. of Education
Questions?
Carl J. Liaupsin
C. Michael Nelson
229 Taylor Education Bldg.
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
606-257-4713