Culturally CompetentSchool-wide Positive Behavior

Support: From Theory to Evaluation Data

Tary J. Tobin (ttobin@uoregon.edu)Claudia G. Vincent (clavin@uoregon.edu)

University of Oregon

7th International Conference on Positive Behavior SupportSt. Louis, MissouriMarch 26, 2010

Part I◦ Behavioral outcomes for culturally and

linguistically diverse (CLD) students—the discipline gap

◦ Brief look at some data◦ Proposal for expanding the conceptual framework

of SWPBS to include cultural responsiveness

Part II◦ Strategies for reducing disproportionate

disciplinary exclusions for African-American students

◦ Recommendations for future research

Advance Organizer

Compared to White students African-American students are

◦ disciplined at a disproportionate rate (Kaufman et al, 2010; Skiba et al., 2005) 2.19 times more likely to receive ODR at elem level, 3.79 times more

likely at middle school level

◦ more severely (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Skiba et al., in review) 3.75 times more likely to be suspended/expelled for minor

misbehavior

◦ suspended and expelled more often (Krezmien et al., 2006; Raffaele Mendez & Knoff, 2003; Theriot et al., in press) 26.28% AA male vs. 11.95% W male, 13.64% AA female vs. 4.53% W

female

Behavioral outcomes for CLD students—the discipline gap

Compared to White students African-American students

◦ are excluded for longer durations (Vincent & Tobin, in press) 55.37% African-American vs 31.47% White students excluded >10 days

◦ are referred to special education at a disproportionate rate (Coutinho & Oswald, 2000; Skiba et al., 2005; Zhang et al. 2004) 3 times more likely to be identified with mild mental retardation

◦ have lower high school graduation rates (Stillwell, 2009) 60.3% of African-American students and 80.3% of White students

graduated within 4 years in the 2006-07 academic year

◦ have higher drop out rates in grades 9-12 (Stillwell, 2009) 6.8% of African-American students and 3% of White students dropped out in

2006-07

Behavioral outcomes for CLD students—the discipline gap

Compared to White students Latino/a students are

◦ identified with depression and anxiety at a disproportionate rate (Fletcher, 2008; McLaughlin et al., 2007; Varela et al., 2008; Zayas et al., 2005) Latina students report statistically higher levels of depression

and anxiety (p<.05)

◦ have higher drop out rates in 9-12th grade(Stillwell, 2009) 6.5% of Latino students and 3% of White students in 2006-07

◦ have higher status drop out rates (percent of 16 through 24-year olds who are not enrolled in schools and have not earned a high school diploma) (U.S. Department of Education, 2009) 21.4% Latino, 5.3% White, 8.4% African-American in 2007

Behavioral outcomes for CLD students—the discipline gap

Compared to White students

Native American students have◦ lower high school graduation rates

(Stillwell, 2009) 61.3% of Nat students and 80.3% of White students graduated within

4 years in the 2006-07 academic year

◦ have higher drop out rates (percent of 9-12th graders) (Stillwell, 2009) 7.6% Nat and 3.0% White in 2006-07

Behavioral outcomes for CLD students—the discipline gap

Behavioral outcomes are linked to academic outcomes

DisciplineGap

Achievement Gap

“use theoretical frameworks… that honor the complexities of individuals learning in socio-historical and cultural contexts”

“engage practitioners as well as families and youth of color in the conceptualization, operationalization, and analysis of research”

“expand the scope of the analyses to align with research on disparities in health, mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare, and postsecondary education.”

◦ Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Trent, S., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and explaining disproportionality, 1968-2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76, 279-299.

Recent recommendations for researching disproportionality

Interaction of

◦ Factors under the school’s control practices, systems, decision-making

◦ Factors not under the school’s control Teachers’ cultural identity

(race, language, socio-economic status, immigration status…) Students’ cultural identity

(race, language, socio-economic status, immigration status…)

Theoretical framework of discipline gap

Theoretical framework of SWPBS (factors under the school’s control)

From Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior support. Child & Family Behavior Therapy 24(1/2), 23-50.

STUDENT BEHAVIOR

Rules & Expectations

AchievementGoalsAdministrative

Structures

Ethnicity

Immigration Status

Tradition

Institutional Language

Individual Language

Cultural Stress

Socio-Economic

Status

Gender

System

s Data

Practices

OutcomesCultural and

Linguistic Diversity

Cultural Responsiveness

School’s Cultural Identity

Student’s Cultural Identity

Theoretical framework of cultural and linguistic diversity (factors not under the school’s control…?)

What does the discipline gap look like in schools implementing SWPBS compared to schools not implementing SWPBS?

SWPBS and the discipline gap

SWPBS Implementers (n = 72) Non-Implementers (n = 81)

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08Total enrollment

413 (128) 416 (132) 408 (122) 465 (166) 477 (180) 480 (175)

% students on FRL

58 (22) 56 (22) 60 (22) 56 (25) 54 (24) 55 (24)

% Non-White Enrollment

47.86 (26.03)

47.61 (26.93)

48.42 (26.95)

53.87 (28.95)

54.16 (28.37)

55.45 (28.36)

ODR/100 students

57.31 (51.95)

57.87 (45.73)

57.68 (51.07)

67.44 (51.12)

70.73 (68.27)

67.31 (68.06)

Location IL (33.3%) OR (26.4)

CO (11.1%) IA (11.1%)

MO (21%)MD (19.8%) NC (17.3%)

Major ODR

One way to quantify the discipline gap Proportionate representation

◦ (% of students with ODR) – (% of students enrolled) = 0

Under-representation:◦ (% of students with ODR) – (% of students enrolled)

= -X

Over-representation:◦ (% of students with ODR) – (% of students enrolled)

= +X

SWPBS and the discipline gap

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

SWPBS Implementersn = 72 elem schools

AfrAmLatinoWhite

% w

ith M

ajor

OD

R M

inus

% E

nrol

led 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Non-Implementersn = 81 elem schools

AfrAmLatinoWhite

% w

ith M

ajor

OD

R M

inus

% E

nrol

led

In schools implementing SWPBS

◦ African-American students were less over-represented among students with ODR

◦ White students were less under-represented among students with ODR

◦ The discipline gap between African-American and White students did not increase across 3 years

SWPBS and the discipline gap

OUTCOMES

SYST

EMS DATA

PRACTICES

Supp

ortin

gSt

aff b

ehav

ior

SupportingStudent behavior

Supporting

Decision-making

Social competence & academic achievement

Can SWPBS help to narrow the discipline gap?

Systemic support of cultural knowledge Encourage staff to increase their familiarity with

cultural differences in expressiveness, communication styles, role of authority, use of language

Systemic support of cultural self-awareness Encourage staff to increase their familiarity with

cultural specificity of their own behavior

see Gwendolyn Cartledge’s work

Culturally responsive systems to support staff behavior

OUTCOMES

SYST

EMS DATA

PRACTICES

Supp

ortin

gSt

aff b

ehav

ior

SupportingStudent behavior

Supporting

Decision-making

Social competence & academic achievement

Can SWPBS help to narrow the discipline gap?

Culturally relevant behavior support Teach behaviors that are socially relevant to CLD

students

Culturally validating behavior support Acknowledge students’ cultural identity as a strength

Culturally responsive practices to support student behavior

OUTCOMES

SYST

EMS DATA

PRACTICES

Supp

ortin

gSt

aff b

ehav

ior

SupportingStudent behavior

Supporting

Decision-making

Social competence & academic achievement

Can SWPBS help to narrow the discipline gap?

Establish cultural validity of data Carefully review operational definitions of behavioral

violations

Disaggregate ODR data by student race For example, ethnicity report of the School Wide

Information System (www.swis.org)

Revise measures Provide schools with tools to assess extent to which

culturally responsive systems and practices are in place

Culturally responsive decision-making

OUTCOMES

SYST

EMS DATA

PRACTICES

Supp

ortin

gSt

aff b

ehav

ior

SupportingStudent behavior

Supporting

Decision-making

Social competence & academic achievement

Can SWPBS help to narrow the discipline gap?

Generate school-wide commitment to culturally equitable behavioral outcomes

Define school-wide behavioral goals in collaboration with parents of CLD students

Increase accountability for equitable outcomes

Review extent to which defined goals are met

Culturally responsive outcomes

Culturally responsive SWPBS

Imbed cultural responsiveness components in ◦ SWPBS training materials◦ SWPBS data collection instruments◦ SWPBS evaluation plans◦ SWPBS research agenda

…to build evidence base of culturally responsive SWPBS implementation

Lots of work to be done!!

Part II◦ Strategies for reducing disproportionate

disciplinary exclusions for African-American students

◦ Recommendations for future research

Advance Organizer

Real harm done by exclusion from school (American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on School Health, 2003)

Real benefits from SWPBS (Sailor, Dunlap, Sugai, & Horner, 2009).

Not enough known – or being done – about racially disproportionate disciplinary exclusions – the discipline gap.

Why I wanted to study this and to talk with you about it:

All had 2 years of School Wide Information System (SWIS, May et al., 2006, see http://swis.org ) discipline data

Looked for changes in disproportionate exclusion of African American Students

Studied 94 schools for 2 years

All had 2 years of online data about which specific SWPBS strategies they were using.

Looked to see if any specific strategies improved –

And if changes in disproportionate exclusions also occurred.

EBS Survey (also known as “PBS Staff Self-Assessment Survey) The original version was published as the

“EBS Survey” (Lewis & Sugai, 1999).

Current versions are available for downloading from http://pbis.org and for online data entry at http://www.pbssurveys.org/pages/SelfAssessmentSurvey.aspx. In this study, all respondents were using Version 2 (Sugai, Horner, & Todd, 2000) .

Measures 46 specific elements of positive behavior support in 4 domains of SWPBS School-wide System: 18 Features Non-Classroom (also known as “Specific Setting”) System: 9 Features

Classroom System: 11 Features Individual Student System: 8 Features

Scale for “In Place” Status 0 = Not in place 1 = Partially in place 2 = In placeAlso asks about “priority for improvement”

Relative Rate Index (RRI) An unbiased measure of disproportionality

Recommended by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dmc/pdf/dmc2003.pps

1. Total number of each group enrolled in the school

2. Number excluded for disciplinary reasons (suspension and/or expulsion)

3. For each group, divide the number excluded by the number enrolled

4. Divide the rate for African-American students by the rate for White students

To find the RRI for disciplinary exclusions of African-American and White students:

Additional information on calculating the Relative Rate Index (RRI) can be found at

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/juvenile/dmc

How does the RRI differ from the “Disproportionate Representation Index” (DRI)?

DRI compares the percentage of a specific racial/ethnic group being arrested, or expelled from school, or suspended, etc., to the percentage that group made up of the total population.

Recall from our earlier discussion ( Under-representation:

◦(% of students with ODR) – (% of students enrolled) = -X

◦Example: 55-74 = -19 (negative #)

Over-representation:◦(% of students with ODR) – (% of students

enrolled) = +X ◦Example: 45-26 = 19 (positive #)

Easily understood when graphed. See chart →

Example of Disproportionate Representation Index (DRI) using Hypothetical Out-of-School Suspension Data

74

26

55

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

White (Under-represented) Minorities (Over-represented)

Percent Enrolled

Percent Suspended

White rate = 55/74 = 0.74 Minority rate = 45/26 = 1.73 RRI = Minority rate / White rate =

1.73/0.74 = 2.33 Means Minorities are more than twice

as likely (in this example) to be suspended as Whites.

Useful for comparing from one year to the next or from one school to another.

Using the same hypothetical data to calculate the RRI:

To study changes in the discipline gap in “diverse” Schools We used data only from schools with some ethnic and racial diversity, operationally defined as at least

> .05% and < .95% CLD students Included schools with some change, up or down, in their RRI from 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 for Out-of-School Suspensions.

Number of Students, Suspensions The total number of students enrolled in 2007-2008 was 58,564.

White students = 32,220 African American students = 14,398. Other students = 11,946 Days of Out-of-School Suspension:26,209

Average RRI in 2007-2008 African American to White Over all average RRI for all the schools: 4.46 (SD = 5.83) Means African Americans, on average, were

more than 4 times as likely to be suspended out as Whites – in these schools that were apparently trying to use SWPBS (taking the time to use SWIS and the EBS Survey online).

But the schools varied and the way they changed over time also varied.

Group 1 – “DOWN” (n = 53)◦RRI went down (reduced their discipline gap) from the 1st year to the 2nd year of the study

Group 2 – “UP” (n = 41)◦RRI went up (worse discipline gap)

from 1st year to 2nd year of study.

Divided the 94 schools into 2 groups

Comparing the 2 groups Group 1 “Down” 43% Free/reduced

price lunch eligible 46% CLD students ODR rate ave. 0.744 (SD = 1.276) (~ 1 per day

per 100 students) 25% African

American

Group 2 “Up” 49% Free/reduced

price lunch eligible 48% CLD students ODR rate ave. 0.724 (SD = 1.250) (~ 1 per day

per 100 students) 24% African

American

ColoradoIllin

oisIowa

Maryland

Michiga

n

Minnesota

Oregon

Rhode Isla

nd

South Caro

lina

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Relative Rate Index (RRI) Changes & Number of Schools by StateRRI_Down RRI_Up

Coun

t

RRI_Down RRI_Up TotalColorado 4 7 11Illinois 12 15 27Iowa 0 1 1Maryland 26 12 38Michigan 1 0 1Minnesota 1 0 1Oregon 6 5 11Rhode Island 1 0 1South Carolina 2 1 3TOTAL 53 41 94

Elementary (K-6) Middle (6-9) High School (9-12) Multi-level (K8-12)0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Relative Rate Index (RRI) Changes and Number of Schools by Grade Level Type of School

RRI_Down RRI_Up

Coun

t

RRI_Down RRI_Up Total

Elementary (K-6) 24 24 48

Middle (6-9) 21 12 33

High School (9-12) 5 3 8

Multi-level (K8-12) 3 2 5

TOTAL 53 41 94

Comparing Changes EBS Survey Improvement with RRI Reduction Multiple regression analyses for EBS

subscales We examined the statistical significance of

Standardized Beta Coefficients to identify EBS items representing specific SWPBS strategies that improved and

were positively associated with decreases in RRI

Multiple Linear Regression: Predicting RRI from EBS Survey ItemsUsed 2007-2008 data 5 survey items were statistically significantly (p < .05) associated with the RRI and had a negative (that’s good in this situation) Standardized Beta Coefficient.

Expected student behaviors are taught directly. (School Wide Item 2.) Beta = -.549

All staff are involved directly or indirectly in management of non-classroom settings. (Non-classroom Item 9.) Beta = -.505

School-wide expected student behaviors apply to non-classroom settings. (Non-classroom Item 1.) Beta = -.479

School-wide behavior support team has a budget for (a) teaching students, (b) on-going rewards, and (c) annual staff planning. (School Wide Item 15.) Beta =-.402

Expected student behavior & routines in classrooms are stated positively & defined clearly. (Classroom Item 1) Beta = -.366

What did the schools that reduced their discipline gap most, do differently?

Looked as the EBS Survey items that changed the most – showing improvement in implementation -- for the schools that had the greatest reductions in RRI.

Top 10 Schools’ Top 10 Strategies

Staff receives regular opportunities for developing and improving active supervision skills. (Non-classroom Item 7)

Status of student behavior and management practices are evaluated quarterly from data. (Non-classroom Item 8)

Booster training activities for students are developed, modified, & conducted based on school data. (School Wide Item 14)

These 3 were mentioned most often, equally often (by 6 of the top 10 schools each):

Significant family &/or community members are involved when appropriate & possible. (Individual Item 6)

School includes formal opportunities for families to receive training on behavioral support/positive parenting strategies. (Individual Item 7)

School-wide expected student behaviors are taught in non-classroom settings. (Non-classroom Item 2)

The next 7 were mentioned next most often, equally often (by 4 of the top 10 schools each)

Problem behaviors receive consistent consequences. (Classroom Item 5)

Options exist to allow classroom instruction to continue when problem behavior occurs. (School Wide Item 7)

Procedures are in place to address emergency/dangerous situations. (School Wide Item 8)

School-wide behavior support team has a budget for (a) teaching students, (b) on-going rewards, and (c) annual staff planning. (School Wide Item 15)

More research is needed to describe how the teaching and acknowledgement of expected student behavior can be delivered in a culturally appropriate manner.

Future research could benefit from: more complete ethnicity data, especially in light of

the new federal regulations on reporting race and ethnicity that will take effect in 2010-2011 (National Forum on Educational Statistics, 2008) and

data from direct observations and interviews in addition to data from records and surveys.

Recommendations for future research

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on School Health. (2003). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 112, 1206-1209. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/5/1206

Cartledge, G. & Johnson, C.T. (2004). School violence and cultural sensitivity. In J. C. Conoley & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.) School violence intervention: A practical handbook. 2nd ed. (pp. 441-482). New York: Guilford Press.

Cartledge, G. & Milburn, J.F. (1996). Cultural diversity and social skill instruction: Understanding ethnic and gender differences. Champaign, IL; Research Press. Cartledge, G. & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children 74(3), 351-371.

Cartledge, G., Sentelle, J., Loe, S., Lambert, M.C., & Reed, E.S. (2001). To be young, gifted, and black? A case study of positive interventions within an inner-city classroom of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 70(4), 243-254.

Cartledge, G., Singh, A., & Gibson, L. (2008). Practical behavior-management techniques to close the accessibility gap for students who are culturally and linguistically diverse. Preventing School Failure 52(3), 29- 38.

Coutinho, M.J. & Oswald, D.P. (2000). Disproportionate representation in special education: A synthesis and recommendations. Journal of Child and Family Studies 9(2), 135-156.

Fletcher, J. (2008). Adolescent depression: Diagnosis, treatment, and educational attainment. Health Economics, 17, 1215-1235.

Gregory, A. & Weinstein, R. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or cooperation in the high school classroom. Journal of School Psychology 46, 455-475.

Hershfeldt, P. A., Sechrest, R., Pell, K. L., Rosenberg, M. S., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Double-Check: A framework of cultural responsiveness applied to classroom behavior. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6(2) Article 5. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol6/iss2/art5

References

Kaufman, J.S., Jaser, S.S., Vaughan, E.L., Reynolds, J.S., Di Donato, J., Bernard, S.N. et al. (2010). Patterns in office discipline referral data by grade, race/ethnicity, and gender. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 12, 44-54.

Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., & Achilles, G. M. (2006). Suspension, race, and disability: Analysis of statewide practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 217-226.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive school-wide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1-24.

May, S., Ard, W., Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Glasgow, A., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. R. (2006). School-wide information system. Eugene: Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon.

McLaughlin, K. A., Hilt, L. M., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2007). Racial/ethnic differences in internalizing and externalizing symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 35, 801-816.

National Forum on Educational Statistics, Race/Ethnicity Data Implementation Task Force. (2008). Managing an identity crisis: Forum guide to implementing new federal race and ethnicity categories (NFES 2008-802). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Raffaele Mendez, L. M., & Knoff, H. M. (2003). Who gets suspended from school and why: A demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a large school district. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(1), 30-51.

Sailor, W., Dunlap, G., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of Positive Behavior Supports. A volume in the Issues in Clinical Child Psychology series, M. Roberts (Series Ed.). New York:  Springer.

Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C., Rausch, M. K., May, S., & Tobin, T. (in review). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline.

Skiba, R.J., Michael, R.S., Nardo, A.C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317-342.

Skiba, R.J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A., Feggins-Azziz, L. & Chung, C. (2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? Journal of Special Education, 39, 130-144.

Stillwell, R. (2009). Public school graduates and dropouts from the common core of data: School year 2006-2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010313.pdf.

Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., & Todd, A. (2000) Effective Behavior Support Self-Assessment Survey (EBS-SAS). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Theriot, M. T., Craun, S.W., & Dupper, D.R. (in press). Multilevel evaluation of factors predicting school exclusion among middle and high school students. Children and Youth Services Review. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth.

Tobin, T. J. (2005). Parents’ guide to functional assessment (Third edition). University of Oregon, College of Education, Educational and Community Supports, Eugene. Retrieved August 8, 2009, from http://uoregon.edu/~ttobin/Tobin-par-3.pdf as “Parents’ Guide, 3rd Edition.”

U.S. Department of Education (October 19, 2007). Final guidance on maintaining, collecting, and reporting racial and ethnic data to the U.S. Department of Education. Federal Register at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.pdf

Varela, R. E., Sanchez-Sosa, J. J., Biggs, B. K., & Luis, T. M. (2008). Anxiety symptoms and fears in Hispanic and European American children: Cross-cultural measurement equivalence. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 30, 132-145; Erratum, p. 162.

Vincent, C. G. (2008). Schools’ use of SWIS to examine their ODR patterns across ethnic categories. Research Brief. Eugene: University of Oregon, Educational and Community Supports.

Vincent, C.G. & Tobin, T.J. (in press). The relationship between implementation of school-wide positive behavior support and disciplinary exclusion of students from various ethnic backgrounds with and without disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.

Zayas, L. H., Lester, R. J., Cabassa, L. J., & Fortuna, L. R. (2005). Why do many Latina teens attempt suicide? A conceptual model. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75 (2), 275-287.

Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Herbst, M. (2004). Disciplinary exclusions in special education: A four-year analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 337-347.