Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Data Report and Summary Winter/Spring 2011-2012
State Education Resource Center
25 Industrial Park Road, Middletown, CT 06457
Phone: 860-632-1485 ● Fax: 860-632-8870
www.ctserc.org/pbis
SERC
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013
Purpose: To summarize the goals, outcomes, and needs of Connecticut’s Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports Initiative.
It is the policy of the State Education Resource Center (SERC) that no person shall be discriminated against or excluded from participation in any SERC programs or activities on the basis of race, color, language, religion, age, marital or civil union status, national origin, ancestry, sex/gender, intellectual disability, physical disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. Inquiries regarding SERC’s nondiscrimination policies should be directed to Alfred P. Bruno, SERC General Counsel at [email protected].
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013
Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports Data Report and Summary
Presented by: State Education Resource Center (SERC)
Marianne Kirner, Ph.D. Executive Director
Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports Initiative
Alice Henley Assistant Director for Program Development & LEA Services
Sarah Brzozowy, Ed.D. Eben McKnight Tarold Miller Michelle Weaver, J.D. Consultants, PBIS Coordination, Training, and Technical Assistance
Sarah-Anne Nicholas Education Services Specialist
Publications Unit
Jeremy Bond Communication & Publications Coordinator Jodylynn Talevi Media/Technology Associate
In collaboration with:
Connecticut State Department of Education University of Connecticut Neag School of Education, Center for Behavioral Education and Research (CBER)
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013
Contents
What is Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports? 1Figure A: PBIS Integrated Elements and Basic Logic for Maximum Student Outcomes
2
What is the purpose of PBIS? 2 What does implementation of PBIS look like? 3
Figure B: PBIS Subsystems 3Figure C: PBIS Continuum of Support 4
How does PBIS align with Connecticut’s Scientific Research-Based Interventions (SRBI) Framework?
5
Figure D: SRBI Integrated Curriculum 5
What is the history of PBIS in Connecticut? 6Figure E: PBIS Systems Implementation Logic Model 6
How many Connecticut districts and schools are adopting PBIS? 7Figure F: Number of Connecticut Schools and Districts Trained in PBIS (2000-2012) 7Figure G: Connecticut Towns with Schools Trained in PBIS (2000-2012) 8Figure H: Percentage of Connecticut Schools and Districts Trained in PBIS by Grade Level (2000-2012)
8
What is Connecticut’s State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)? What is the connection to PBIS?
9
What does the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) data say about implementation in Connecticut?
9
Figure I: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort A, Beginning Training 2007-2008
10
Figure J: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort B, Beginning Training 2008-2009
11
Figure K: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort C, Beginning Training 2009-2010
11
What do we learn about implementation through the use of School-wide Information System (SWIS) data?
12
Figure L: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut Elementary Schools (2009-2012)
13
Figure M: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut Middle Schools (2009-2012)
13
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013
Figure N: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut High Schools (2009-2012)
14
Figure O: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut PK-8 Schools (2009-2012)
14
What do the data reflect regarding ethnicity in ODRs? 15
Figure P: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity, Connecticut Schools, All Grade Levels, 2009-2010
17
Figure Q: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity, Connecticut Schools, All Grade Levels, 2010-2011
17
Figure R: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity, Connecticut Schools, All Grade Levels, 2011-2012
18
What is the current need/demand for PBIS training and support in Connecticut? 19 How is PBIS supportive of school reform efforts in Connecticut? 19 Summary 20 Connecticut PBIS Three-Year Goals (2011-2014) 21 Appendix A 25 Appendix B 37
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 1
What is Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports?
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a systems approach to teaching and managing behavior in schools. The goal of establishing a PBIS system is to enhance the capacity of schools, families, and communities to create and maintain positive school environments so all students can achieve academically and socially.
PBIS involves a continuum of evidence-based practices for all students, supported by all staff, and sustained in both classroom and non-classroom settings (such as hallways, buses, and restrooms). The PBIS model uses a systemic approach so that otherwise isolated parts of the school operate in tandem. Taking a behavioral approach to school-wide discipline creates an environment in which staff is an important part of helping students achieve outcomes by choosing more effective, efficient, and desirable behaviors.
Schools using a PBIS approach focus on creating and sustaining primary (school-wide), secondary (small group), and tertiary (individual) systems of support that improve lifestyle results (personal, health, social, family, work, recreation) for students and families [Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP): Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2012]. This multi-level approach to intervention is a more comprehensive way of responding to students’ behavioral needs because the focus is on layers of prevention and the logical distribution of resources.
An established and organized continuum of support allows human and fiscal resources to be redistributed to the students with the greatest need, while ensuring behavioral and social learning success for all students. Schools achieve comprehensive student behavioral success by examining the factors that impact behavior as well as the relationship between environment and behavior.
PBIS also works to improve overall school climate, decrease reactive management, maximize academic achievement for all students, integrate academic and behavioral initiatives, and address the specific needs of students with severe emotional and behavioral concerns (OSEP: Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2012).
The four integrated elements (Figure A), data, practices, systems, and outcomes, are the foundation of a PBIS model. Data drive the decisions regarding behavioral needs in the educational setting. The evidence-based practices provide staff and students with the tools to achieve desired behavioral outcomes. The systems provide the structure and resources required by the chosen practices. Outcomes are short- and long-term goals that staff, students, and family want to achieve in the school.
Pairing the integrated elements with a system of training, coaching, and evaluation through a cultural and contextual lens improves implementation fidelity to maximize student outcomes.
PBIS Data
What i
The primauniversal universal
Opportunestablishiinclude: mfor discou
Report and S
Figure A: PBI
Source: Adap
is the pur
ary focus of Plevel. This procedures t
nities for stung a school-w
methods to exuraging proble
Summary © S
IS Integrated
pted from OSEP
rpose of P
PBIS is to provis accomplishat contain c
udent succeswide system xamine needem behaviors
SERC 2013
Elements an
P: Center on Po
PBIS?
vide proactivehed when th
clear and cons
ss are enhanfor reinforc
s through das; and monito
nd Basic Logic
ositive Behavio
e and effectivhe whole schsistent behav
nced by direing desired bta; developm
oring impleme
c for Maximu
oral Interventio
ve behaviorahool communvioral expecta
ectly teachinbehavior. Th
ment of schooentation and
m Student O
ons and Suppo
l support for nity establishations.
ng universal he necessary ol-wide expecprogress.
Outcomes
orts, 2012
all students ahes and main
expectationselements of
ctations; strat
2
at the ntains
s and f PBIS tegies
PBIS Data
What d
PBIS provbehavioraresearch-vSupports however, students o
The natiodelineateThe Schomemberssettings ipractices,rather thaand off-sisupportinpractices,respond t
Schools aeach subsSchools cuthe stude
Report and S
does imp
vides a framal practices avalidated or provides exschools may
or staff. onal Center od five PBIS su
ool-wide subs across all sein which del processes, aan instructionte events. Th
ng family part processes, a
to interventio
re charged wsystem basedustomize the nts and famil
Source: Adap
Summary © S
plementat
mework for and systems.evidence-bas
xamples of ty choose to co
n PBIS syntheubsystems: Scsystem identettings. The livery of instand systems fn. These setthe Family subticipation anand systems
ons in place at
with identifyid on their neidentified pries served by
pted from OSEP
SERC 2013
tion of PB
implementin. Schools arsed. The nathe most apontinue using
esized the rechool-wide, Cltifies practiceClassroom sutruction is efor settings itings include bsystem identd ensuring fathat suppor
t the school-w
ng the practeeds, resourcactices and in
y the school.
Figure B:
P: Center on Po
BIS look l
g a continure encourage
ational Centeppropriate, efg practices th
esearch base lassroom, Noes, processesubsystem ideemphasized. n which the sporting evetifies practiceamily access.rt individual wide level of
ices that willes, and the cnterventions
PBIS Subsyst
ositive Behavio
like?
um of evideed to use pr
er on Positiveffective, effi
hat have achie
around schoon-classroom,s, and syste
entifies practi The Non-clemphasis is nts, assemblies, processes. Finally, theand small grprevention.
l have the grcompetence to the school
tems
oral Interventio
ence-based, ractices and e Behavioral cient, and reved measur
ol-based beh Family, and ms for all sices, processelassroom subon monitorinies, cafeteria, and systeme Student suroups of stud
reatest likelihof the requirl’s context an
ons and Suppo
prevention-bsystems thaIntervention
relevant pracrable outcom
havior supporStudent (Figu
students andes, and systebsystem idenng and supers, hallways, bs for engaginbsystem idendents who d
hood of succered impleme
nd to the cultu
orts, 2012
3
based, at are s and
ctices; es for
rt and ure B). staff
ems in ntifies vision buses, ng and ntifies o not
ess in nters. ure of
PBIS Data
Practices typically iand tertiarather sudifferent
The primsettings. 70% to 90
The secoresponsivmanner fand fidelistudents b
The tertiathose stuplans arepopulatio
Primary Sup• Scho
SystStaf
Report and S
within the suncludes thre
ary. Additionpplement, plevels. Stude
ary level incWhen implem
0% of student
ndary level ive to primaryor small grouity, the seconbehaviorally.
ary level is thdents who do
e usually necon.
Source: Adap
pport: ool/Classroomtems for All Stff, and Setting
Summary © S
ubsystems aree levels of su
nal supports arimary suppo
ents receive su
cludes practicmented effects.
includes targy practices. ups of studenndary level is
he most inteo not responessary to me
Fi
pted from OSEP
m-Wide tudents, gs
SERC 2013
e organized aupport with iat the secondort. In this upport at the
ces and systectively and wi
geted practiceSecondary
nts demonstrs typically ab
nsive and incd to the primeet the indiv
igure C: PBIS
P: Center on Po
along a continncreasing intdary and tert
way, suppore level that m
ems for all sth fidelity, sc
es and systeinterventions
rating like neble to effecti
cludes speciamary and secovidual needs
Continuum o
ositive Behavio
T
nuum of supptensity and cotiary levels arrts are layeratches their r
students andchools should
ems for studes are typical
eeds. When iively support
alized practicondary suppoof an additi
of Support
oral Interventio
Secondary• Sp
for
Tertiary Supp• Individ
with H
port (Figure Complexity: prre not intendred rather thresponsivene
staff, impled expect to se
ents who arely provided implementedt an addition
ces and systeorts. At this ional 1% to
ons and Suppo
y Support: ecialized Gror Students wi
ort: dualized SuppHigh-Risk Beh
C). The contirimary, secon
ded to replacehan substitutess to prevent
mented acroee a response
e not consistin a standar
d with high qnal 10% to 30
ems of suppolevel, interve10% of a st
orts, 2012
oup Support Sth High-Risk B
port for Studehavior
4
nuum ndary, e, but ted at tion.
oss all e from
tently rdized
quality 0% of
ort for ention udent
Systems Behavior
ents
PBIS Data
How dInterve
The ConcompreheFramewocontinuumoriented sgoals thacompone
SRBI depeexisting pcharactersuccess, character
Report and S
does PBIentions (S
necticut SRBensive, and hrk provides m of supportsystem of sch
at are achievnt of PBIS.
ends on contpractices and
istics of SRBdata-based distics also are
A•P•Frpr
Summary © S
IS align SRBI) Fra
BI Framewohigh-quality m
specific guit for behaviohool functionived by evide
tinuous progsystems accoI include impdecision make fundamenta
Fi
Source
Assessmeneriod universrequent/ conrogress monit
SERC 2013
with Comework?
ork is used multi-tiered sy
dance for ioral and sociing and resou
ence-based p
ress monitorording to the plementation king and proal to PBIS.
igure D: SRBI
e: Adapted fro
t Systemsal screeningtinuous toring
DecisS
•Methodsdata
•Methodsstrategic decisions
nnecticut?
for develoystem of supmplementatial developm
urce allocatiopractices deli
ring in order most currentof fidelity, s
oblem solvin
Integrated C
om John Hintz
sion MakinSystems for organizin
s for making and systemic
s
Ins•Sciecore
•Scie"tie
t’s Scien
oping and ipport for all sion of evideent (Figure Dn. SRBI requvered throug
to sustain at data, also instudent perfog, and unive
Curriculum
ze, Ph.D. (200
ng
ng
c
structionalentifically supe curriculumentifically sup
ers" of interve
ntific Res
mplementingstudents. PBence-based pD). PBIS is aires the creatgh an efficie
chieved outcntegral to PBormance as aersal screeni
09)
Systempported
pported entions
search-Ba
g a coordinBIS within thepractices aloalso a prevention of data-dent system,
comes and mBIS. Other dea measuremeng. All of
5
ased
nated, e SRBI ong a ntion-driven a key
modify efining ent of these
PBIS Data
What i
The natiostructure leadershipthe know
Connecticcoach to sConnecticessential and conte
With theswith the CRegional Collaborasupportinand resouand RESC
Report and S
is the hist
onal Center oof PBIS at t
p team with aledge and pra
Source
cut school disserve on a brcut have submto constructi
extual fit.
se implemenCenter for Be
Education Stive. The
ng districts anurces. There s. The Colla
Summary © S
tory of PB
on PBIS provithe state anda dual focus oactices that w
Figure E:
e: Center on P
stricts align wroader districmitted a distrng and susta
tation featurehavioral EduService CentCollaborative
nd school-basis also a comborative is bu
SERC 2013
BIS in Co
ides practitiod local levelson sustaining
will make the
PBIS Systems
Positive Beha
ith the suggect leadership rict plan to scaining PBIS im
res in mind, tcation and Reters (RESCs)e works to sed teams in
mprehensive suilding capac
nnecticut
oners with ans (Figure E). g public suppoframework su
s Implementa
avioral Interve
ested logic moteam. Since cale-up PBIS o
mplementatio
the State Edesearch (CBE
in Connecstandardize PBIS implem
statewide datcity through C
t?
n implementa The model
ort for PBIS imustainable.
ation Logic M
entions and S
odel by appoi2007-2008, dover time. T
on district-wid
ucation ResoR) at the Uni
cticut to estConnecticut
mentation thrtabase of all CBER to main
ation logic mdemonstrate
mplementatio
Model
Supports (201
inting a distridistricts new
This comprehede while mai
ource Center versity of Cotablish the t’s approachrough shared schools train
ntain a netwo
model to guides the needon and embe
12)
ct coordinatoto PBIS train
ensive approntaining a cu
(SERC) has jnnecticut andConnecticut
h to trainingtraining mat
ned by CBER, ork of high-q
6
de the for a
edding
or and ning in ach is
ultural
oined d four
PBIS g and terials SERC,
quality
PBIS Data
trainers fo(STC). CB
How m
Since 200of 2011-2PBIS trainall of Confrom distr
Schools aPBIS trainmiddle sc
Source: SE
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Report and S
or PBIS throuER accepted
many Con
0, Connecticu2012, 294 sching (Figure F)
nnecticut’s scricts across th
t all grade lening. Of thehools 18% (5
Figure F: Nu
RC, 2012
25
8
Summary © S
ugh the Schooa fourth new
necticut
ut has been thools represe). This total rchool districtshe state is dep
vels (preschoe 294 schools3), high schoo
umber of Con
4757
18 2
SERC 2013
ol-wide Positi cohort of PB
districts
raining schooenting 66 distepresents 23s (Connecticupicted in Figu
ool through hs trained in ols 15% (45),
nnecticut Scho
108
20 26
ve BehavioraBIS trainers fo
and scho
ols in PBIS thrtricts in Conn% of the state
ut State Depaure G.
high), as well Connecticut,and PK-8 sch
ools and Dist
131
17
29
al Interventionor STC session
ools are a
rough CBER, Snecticut havee’s public schartment of E
as alternativ elementary
hools 10% (30
tricts Trained
72
246
395
ns and Suppons in fall 2011
dopting P
SERC, and thee received athools and appEducation, 20
ve schools, haschools rep
0) (Figure H).
d in PBIS (200
294
56 66
orts Training .
PBIS?
e RESC Allianct least one yeproximately 3012). Particip
ave participatresent 57%
00-2012)
Schools
Districts
7
Cadre
ce. As ear of
39% of pation
ted in (166),
s
PBIS Data
Source: SE
Figure H
Source: SE
Report and S
Figure
RC, 2012
: Percentage
RC, 2012
Summary © S
e G: Connecti
of Connectic
18%
15%
SERC 2013
icut Towns w
cut Schools an
10%
with Schools T
nd Districts T
5
Trained in PB
Trained in PB
57%
IS (2000-2012
IS by Grade L
Elemen
Middle
High
PK-8
2)
Level (2000-2
ntary
e
8
2012)
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 9
What is Connecticut’s State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)? What is the connection to PBIS?
State Personnel Development Grants from the U.S. Department of Education have facilitated efforts to implement SRBI. From 2007-2011, SERC coordinated its first SPDG, involving six model PBIS sites and representing four districts with varying resources and student needs. Data indicated that use of a systems approach can improve performance of all students while reducing achievement gaps fairly dramatically. The results also suggested that in a short amount of time, with external support and strong building leadership, educators were able to establish the structures needed to continuously improve instructional practices and, ultimately, student performance. Therefore, SERC, under the auspices of the CSDE, sought the opportunity to secure additional federal funding to build a statewide system to ensure fidelity of implementation of SRBI statewide. In 2011, Connecticut was one of eight states awarded an SPDG, bringing $4.6 million to the state over five years. PBIS is one of the key components of the current SPDG. Participating school-based teams approach two challenges simultaneously:
1. increasing reading performance through strategic instruction, and 2. reducing discipline referrals through positive behavioral interventions and supports. The
unique pairing of these two outcomes recognizes that student success can often be directly linked with the opportunity to learn in a safe and respectful environment. This integrated approach aims to eliminate the disparity in academic performance for students with disabilities, students of color, and students acquiring English.
SERC has been charged with coordinating this five-year project in collaboration with the CSDE. Other grant partners include the RESC Alliance, UCONN/CBER, the Connecticut Parent Information and Resource Center, the Connecticut Parent Advocacy Center, and Connecticut’s Birth to 3 System. Connecticut’s SPDG essentially has three goals:
1. training schools on research-based practices to address reading instruction aligned with Common Core State Standards, behavioral interventions, educational benefit, and family engagement;
2. creating and sustaining statewide systems to support educators in implementing these practices; and
3. tracking student performance to ensure all students are achieving at higher levels.
What does the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) data say about implementation in Connecticut?
PBIS includes the use of data to assess the impact of behavioral supports at each tier of support. Data are also used to make decisions about what type of supports are provided to which students.
PBIS Data
The Schofidelity at
• Ex• B• O• Sy• M• M• D
On the SErespectiveinitial SEimplemen
SET data data showbehavioraimplemen
Figure
Source: pb
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Report and S
ol-wide EvaluTier I. The S
xpectations Dehavioral Exp
On-going Systeystem for Res
Monitoring anManagement
istrict-level S
ET, a score ofely reference
ET is considntation.
over three yew that scoresal support. ntation fidelit
e I: Percentag
bisevals.org
Summary © S
uation Tool (ET scores sev
Defined pectations Taem for Rewarsponding to Bd Decision M
upport
f at least 80/e “Behavioralered a bas
ears demonsts improve thr
This suggety (Figures I, J
ge of Connect
Year 1
SERC 2013
SET) evaluateven compone
ught rding BehavioBehavioral Vioaking
/80 indicates Expectationeline assess
trate that schroughout the sts the imp, and K).
ticut Schools Training 2
es the extentnts of PBIS im
oral Expectatiolations
fidelity of PBs Taught” anment that
hools in Year training serieortance of
Implementin2007-2008 (N
Year 2
t to which PBmplementatio
ons
BIS implemennd the meanhighlights a
1 of training es as schoolsa three-yea
ng PBIS to CriN=22)
BIS is being ion:
ntation at Tieof all seven
reas of foc
typically do s begin to expr training se
terion: Coho
Year
implemented
er I. The numcomponents
cus for begi
not meet SETpand and orgeries to pro
rt A, Beginnin
3
Not Met SET
Met SET
10
d with
mbers s. The inning
T. The ganize omote
ng
T
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 11
Figure J: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort B, Beginning
Training 2008-2009 (N=36)
Source: pbisevals.org
Figure K: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort C, Beginning
Training 2009-2010 (N=22)
Source: pbisevals.org
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Not Met SET
Met SET
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Not Met SET
Met SET
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 12
What do we learn about implementation through the use of School-wide Information System (SWIS) data?
All district and school leadership teams are taught to use the integrated elements (data, outcomes, practices, and systems) to process current strengths and needs and to devise an ongoing action plan. Review of up-to-date data is essential to making relevant and durable decisions about changes to the school-wide system and program.
Beginning in 2009-2010, schools that applied to participate in Connecticut’s PBIS Training Series were required to use the School-wide Information System (SWIS) for, at minimum, the three years in which they are involved in the training series. SWIS is a web-based data collection system that tracks Office Discipline Referral (ODR) information. It allows school staff to distinguish between major and minor infractions.
Schools are encouraged to use five standard reports, commonly known as the “Big 5,” on a monthly and annual basis. The “Big 5” reports are: Average Referrals Per Day Per Month; Referrals by Problem Behavior; Referrals by Time; Referrals by Location; and Referrals by Student. The system also allows staff to produce a wide variety of custom graphs and reports defined by a myriad of parameters (e.g., location, time of day, behavior, administrative decision, individual student, ethnicity, IEP status, and referring staff).
Together the Big 5 highlight the essential information about the current condition of behavior in the school and enable teams to detect areas of success and immediate concern. State-level evaluators may access aggregate statewide data for three of these charts (referrals by problem behavior, time, and location) through PBIS Evaluations.
SWIS is primarily a school-based progress monitoring tool. Schools are encouraged to begin entering ODR information before the first year of implementation so they have a baseline with which to compare subsequent years. Most PBIS schools in Connecticut use the SWIS system. Those that choose not to do so may have difficulty reviewing the data necessary during team meetings and trainings to engage fully in the decision-making process.
In the following figures (Figures L, M, N, and O), the 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 data show that Connecticut PBIS schools using SWIS identified abusive language/profanity, defiance/disrespect, disruption, harassment/bullying, and physical aggression as the top five most common problem behaviors reported.
The data also show a decrease in the frequency of defiance/disrespect at all grade levels at Connecticut PBIS Schools. High school and PK-8 school levels report the greatest decreases, 6.6 percentage points and 6.8 percentage points, respectively.
Reports of physical aggression have also decreased at all grade levels. The most notable difference occurs at the PK-8 school level with an 8.8 percentage-point decrease.
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 13
Data depict slight increases in the frequency of harassment/ bullying at the elementary, high, and PK-8
levels. This change may be attributed to the new bullying legislation, PA-11-232, which requires new
procedures for identifying and reporting incidences of bullying in schools.
Figure L: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut Elementary Schools (2009-2012)
Source: pbisevals.org
Figure M: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut Middle Schools (2009-2012)
Source: pbisevals.org
9.1%
28.8%
9.1% 4.8%
32.1%
9.2%
25.9%
9.8% 5.1%
27.1%
8.5%
26.1%
8.7% 5.0%
30.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Abusive Language/Inappropriate Language/
Profanity
Defiance/ Disrespect/Insubordination/ Non-
compliance
Disruption Harassment/ Bullying Physical Aggression
2009-2010 N=63
2010-2011 N=83
2011-2012 N=101
7.3%
33.9%
15.9%
5.1%
10.8%
6.7%
30.4%
19.4%
4.5% 8.2% 7.8%
30.6%
18.8%
4.6% 7.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Abusive Language/Inappropriate Language/
Profanity
Defiance/ Disrespect/Insubordination/ Non-
compliance
Disruption Harassment/ Bullying Physical Aggression
2009-2010 N=15
2010-2011 N=25
2011-2012 N=35
PBIS Data
Figure
Source: pb
Figure
Source: pb
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Report and S
e N: Percenta
bisevals.org
e O: Percenta
bisevals.org
4.8%5.2% 5
Abusive LanguaInappropriate Lan
Profanity
6.4% 7.8%
Abusive LanguaInappropriate Lan
Profanity
Summary © S
age Office Dis
age Office Dis
25.9%2
5.1%
age/guage/
DefiancInsubord
co
32.2%2
9.2%
age/guage/
DefiancInsubord
co
SERC 2013
scipline Refer(2
scipline Refer(2
%23.4% 19.3%
e/ Disrespect/dination/ Non-mpliance
%26.5% 25.4%
e/ Disrespect/dination/ Non-mpliance
rrals by Probl2009-2012)
rrals by Probl2009-2012)
8.7% 8.4% 4
Disruption
8.8% 9.5%
Disruption
lem Behavior
lem Behavior
1.4%4.9%
Harassm
5.1%8.6%
Harassm
r – Connectic
r – Connectic
1.3% 1.5%
ment/ Bullying
%4.9% 5.6%
ment/ Bullying
cut High Scho
cut PK-8 Scho
3.2% 1.3% 1
Physical Aggres
2009-2010 N=
2010-2011 N=
2011-2012 N=
25.7%
13.0%16.
Physical Aggres
2009-2010 N=
2010-2011 N=
2011-2012 N=
14
ools
ools
1.1%
sion
=16
=21
=27
.9%
sion
=18
=27
=35
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 15
What do the data reflect regarding ethnicity in ODRs? One of the features in SWIS allows schools to view ODR data by student ethnicity. This shows school staff whether the proportion of students with ODRs over- or under-represents the proportion of students in any ethnic group. Ethnicity data are available only from schools that use the ethnicity feature. SERC has encouraged full use of this feature by all Connecticut schools using SWIS. Analysis of Connecticut’s SWIS data at the state level demonstrates disproportionality by ethnicity in all grades, with some groups overrepresented and other groups underrepresented in the data (Figures P, Q, and R). Although there was a spike in disproportionality of ODR data from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011, the data demonstrate the narrowing of the disproportionality gap within various ethnic groups over a three-year period. Between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012, there was an overall decrease in underrepresentation among White students. In 2009-2010, White students represented 56% of the total enrollment while representing only 44% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, White students represented 55% of total enrollment and 47% of all students with referrals. Between 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, there was an overall decrease in overrepresentation among Hispanic/Latino and Black students. In 2010-2011, Hispanic/Latino students represented 21% of total enrollment, but 33% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Hispanic/Latino students still represented 21% of the total population, but only 27% of all students with referrals. In 2010-2011, Black students represented 15% of the total population, yet 27% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Black students represented 16% of the total enrollment, but only 23% of all students with referrals. Data disaggregated by grade level showed similar decreases in disproportionality from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 (Appendix A). At the elementary school level, the data show an overall decrease in overrepresentation among Black students. In 2009-2010, Black students represented approximately 15.8% of the total enrollment, yet 27.3% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Black students represented 13.1% of the total enrollment, yet 21.2% of all students with referrals.
The middle school level data show an overall decrease in overrepresentation among Hispanic/Latino students. In 2009-2010, Hispanic/Latino students represented 12.7% of total enrollment and 22.9% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Hispanic/Latino students represented 21.8% of total enrollment and 30% of all students with referrals.
Underrepresentation among White students has continuously decreased from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 at the middle school level. In 2009-2010, White students represented 65.1% of total enrollment and 45.6% of all students with referrals. In 2010-2011, White students represented 57.2% of total
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 16
enrollment and 41.4% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, White students represented 58.5% of total enrollment and 44.9% of all students with referrals.
At the high school level, data demonstrate a decrease in overrepresentation of Black students even as enrollment increased. In 2009-2010, Black students represented 9.2% of the total enrollment and 14.4% of all students with referrals. In 2010-2011, Black students represented 7.3% of total enrollment and 11.8% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Black students represented 13% of total enrollment and 14.1% of all students with referrals.
High school-level data show an overall decrease in underrepresentation of White students over the three-year period. In 2009-2010, White students represented 76.4% of total enrollment and 71.5% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, White students represented 68.7% of total enrollment and 66.7% of all students with referrals.
At the elementary school level, the data show an overall decrease in overrepresentation among Black students. The same trend is demonstrated with Hispanic/Latino students at the elementary school level.
Connecticut PBIS trainers and technical assistance providers will continue to work with schools to review their data through the lens of ethnicity to develop and implement action plans to address discrepancies.
PBIS Data
Figure P
Source: pb
Figure Q
Source: pb
1
1
Report and S
P: Percentage
bisevals.org
Q: Percentage
bisevals.org
1%0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1%0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Summary © S
e Office Disci
e Office Disci
5%1%
5%0%
SERC 2013
pline Referra2
ipline Referra2
17%
2%
2
15%
1%
2
als by Ethnicit2009-2010
als by Ethnici2010-2011
21%25% 28
21%27%33
ty, Connectic
ity, Connectic
0%
8%
0
2%
3%
1
cut Schools, A
cut Schools, A
0%% 0%
% Po
% of
0%1% 0
% Pop
% of S
All Grade Lev
All Grade Lev
56%
%
44
opulation
Students w/O
56%
0%
pulation
Students w/ O
17
els,
vels,
4%
DRs
38%
DRs
PBIS Data
Figure R
Source: pb
1
Report and S
R: Percentage
bisevals.org
1%0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Summary © S
e Office Disci
5%0%
SERC 2013
pline Referra2
16%
1%
23
als by Ethnicit2011-2012
21%3%
ty, Connectic
2%
27%
1
cut Schools, A
0%1% 0
% Po
% of
All Grade Lev
55%
0%
4
opulation
Students w/O
18
vels,
47%
DRs
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 19
What is the current need/demand for PBIS training and support in Connecticut?
The current demand for PBIS training and support in Connecticut is quite extensive, as there continues to be a need for a framework of evidence-based practices for behavioral support in schools. New suspension-expulsion guidelines, as well as the state’s revised anti-bullying legislation, are likely contributors to the demand for PBIS training. PBIS includes support for the behavioral and mental health needs of all Connecticut’s students.
How is PBIS supportive of school reform efforts in Connecticut?
Turnaround Schools The United States Department of Education requires states with approved ESEA waivers to classify at least 5 percent of Title I schools as turnaround schools. Connecticut was granted the ESEA waiver in 2012 and subsequently identified 28 turnaround schools. A total of 21 (or 75%) of Connecticut’s turnaround schools have participated in PBIS training (SERC, 2013). Focus Schools The Focus School designation is designed to identify schools with the lowest-performing student subgroups across the State, which to this point may have been masked by overall student performance. Focus Schools were identified using CMT/CAPT 2011 data. A total of 29 of the 55 identified Focus Schools (or 53%) have participated in PBIS training (SERC, 2013). Alliance Districts Public Act 12-116 created the Alliance District program to help districts raise student performance and close achievement gaps by pursuing bold and innovative reform strategies. The law established a new process for identifying 30 Alliance Districts – the districts with the lowest district performance index (DPI) scores statewide – and targeted increased Education Cost Sharing (ECS) funding for these districts. Each district’s receipt of its designated allocation is conditioned upon district submission, and Connecticut State Department of Education approval, of an Alliance District Plan for the expenditure of the new increment of conditional funds in the context of the district’s overall strategy to improve academic achievement. Currently, 26 of 30 (or 87%) of Connecticut’s Alliance Districts have participated in PBIS training (SERC, 2013). Commissioner’s Network Public Act 12-116 establishes a Commissioner’s Network to provide new resources and flexibilities to improve student achievement in the state’s lowest-performing schools. The Commissioner’s Network is designed as a partnership between local stakeholders and the state and will serve as a vehicle for innovative initiatives, a platform for sharing effective practices, and a model for other schools and districts throughout the state.
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 20
Statute permits the Commissioner to select up to 25 schools for the Network over the next three years. Most schools will be selected to join the Network for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years, but a limited number of schools will be considered to join the Network for 2012-13. Network turnaround plans will include intensive and transformative strategies that are necessary to turnaround schools that, to date, have been insufficiently successful in their improvement efforts. Currently, 75% of districts with approved plans for schools in the Commissioner’s Network are a part of PBIS training (SERC, 2013). Review Schools Review Schools are among Connecticut’s lowest performing, irrespective of Title I status. All schools with CMT/ CAPT 2012 participation rates less than 95 percent, four-year cohort graduation rates below 60 percent (for the graduating class of 2011), three-year baseline School Performance Indexes (SPIs) below 64, or identification as Focus Schools were classified as Review Schools. Currently, 54/84 (or 64%) of Connecticut’s Review Schools have participated in PBIS training (SERC, 2013). See the PBIS Results-Based Accountability (RBA) Report Card (Appendix B).
Summary
As of 2011-12, almost one-fourth (23%) of Connecticut’s schools have participated in at least one year of PBIS training. Nationally and statewide, the majority of schools participating in PBIS are at the elementary level. Recent years have seen an increase in the number of middle and high schools as well. Outreach efforts to these schools will continue.
To ensure that all schools in Connecticut have access to coaching, training, and technical assistance, the CT PBIS Collaborative continues to invest in building capacity in PBIS trainers across the state. Through CT’s State Personnel Development Grant, SERC, CBER, and the RESC Alliance, educational leaders have participated in training with the field’s leading experts. These partnerships have provided Connecticut schools the opportunity to receive more intensive technical assistance, focusing on their specific implementation challenges and celebrating their successes. The CT PBIS Collaborative will continue to meet as a Professional Learning Community (PLC) specifically designed to sustain and expand training and technical assistance capabilities.
Analysis of Connecticut SET data reveals that by the third year of PBIS training, the majority of schools are implementing PBIS with fidelity. The CT PBIS Collaborative will continue to offer a three-year training series to promote implementation fidelity and will address specific implementation issues with each school in training.
SWIS data show that the top five problem behaviors are common across all grade levels. These problem behaviors include abusive language/profanity, defiance/disrespect, disruption, harassment/bullying, and physical aggression. Over the last three years, rates of referrals for two of these problem behaviors, physical aggression and defiance/disrespect, have decreased at all grade levels. Nationally, school-wide teams have expressed the desire to share classroom strategies with their staff earlier in the process. In
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 21
addition, there is evidence that developing classroom systems along with school-wide systems improves sustainability. With this in mind, the CT PBIS Collaborative will alter the scope and sequence of PBIS training to begin the training and technical assistance around classroom management practices earlier in the training series.
ODR data show that Connecticut continues to refer students of color disproportionately for behavioral violations at all grade levels. Hispanic/Latino and Black students are referred at much higher rates than their White peers. Over the past three years, the disproportionality gap has narrowed within each of these subgroups. However, the disproportionate pattern of referral rates endures. The CT PBIS Collaborative will continue to ensure that training and technical assistance through PBIS addresses issues of race/ethnicity and that trainers and technical assistance providers enhance the ability to focus data structures and practices with a lens on equity.
The CT PBIS Collaborative now includes the enhanced perspective of the four integrated elements in training to highlight the importance of considering culture and context when implementing PBIS. Systems and practices must reflect the school’s specific staff and student population to achieve maximum student outcomes. The Collaborative has also emphasized the importance of disaggregating ODR data by ethnicity and the need to consistently monitor reports by ethnicity to inform any changes to implementation. Given the importance of analyzing data through a variety of lenses, the CT PBIS Collaborative will work closely with individuals and organizations with expertise in culturally responsive pedagogy and discipline practices to further embed these practices into PBIS training, technical assistance, and coaching.
The CT PBIS Collaborative presents School-wide PBIS training curriculum in a manner that encourages teams to consider the impact of their support systems on students who represent subgroups of their school’s population (i.e. race, ethnicity, gender, etc.). Coaches meetings provide a space for in-depth conversation about the information and tools needed to analyze data for disproportionality. One purpose of these meetings is to ensure that schools are asking the types of questions about their data that will lead them to discover what might be contributing to these inequities. The CT PBIS Collaborative will continue to work to provide a continuum of behavioral supports that is reflective of students’ diverse strengths and needs in order to increase student achievement in a predictable, safe, and pro-social learning environment while eliminating racial disparities.
Connecticut PBIS Three-Year Goals (2011-2014)
Goals for Connecticut’s statewide system for PBIS were published in the PBIS Data Report and Summary: December 2011 (SERC, 2011). Since 2011, the CT PBIS Collaborative has undertaken a great deal to address these goals:
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 22
• Expanding the Connecticut PBIS Collaborative, a statewide comprehensive stakeholder group, that invests in systems for training, coaching, and evaluation, to address the growing demand for training and scaling-up in Connecticut districts.
This goal is ongoing. The CT PBIS Collaborative met five times in 2011-12. Representatives from all partners were in attendance at each meeting. The Collaborative will continue to meet in 2012-13 and further expand partnerships with Connecticut RESCs and CSDE. Participation from all stakeholders at these meetings ensures that statewide efforts to provide high-quality professional development and technical assistance around PBIS to all schools in Connecticut are consistent and aligned with the heavily researched national model.
• Expanding the Connecticut Model Schools Project to include identification of Banner Schools and Model Demonstration Sites.
The Model Schools Project was revamped and no schools were highlighted in 2011-12. However, the project will resume in 2012-13 and will recognize more schools across Connecticut for exemplary PBIS implementation.
• Building capacity in school-wide PBIS trainers through the extension of the PBIS Trainer of Trainers Network.
The PBIS Trainer of Trainers Network continued and was further enhanced by the addition of a session dubbed “Completers” for those who participated fully in School-wide PBIS Training Cadre. Additionally, CT PBIS played a role in the NE PBIS Conference serving on the planning/advisory committee, presenting a breakout session, exhibiting at the poster session, and participating as conference attendees in an effort to continuously develop CT PBIS expertise and contributions to the field. This goal is ongoing for 2012-13.
• Enhancing and building capacity for providing district-specific assistance in the development and management of secondary and tertiary behavior support systems and expertise of local personnel.
This goal is ongoing. Enhancements have been made, and will continue to be made, to the statewide training series regarding secondary and tertiary behavior support systems and building staff capacity to provide such support.
• Investigating further the local relationship between SWPBIS and academic outcomes.
This goal is ongoing. One specific approach to address this goal has been through CT’s SPDG of which PBIS is a significant component. The grant includes assessment of and support for implementing academic and behavioral systems and practices. In particular, the grant is examining the impact of integrated SWPBIS and academic systems on reading.
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 23
• Identifying further a static funding source for scaling-up efforts.
This goal needs to be continued. Collaboration with CSDE will help with determining future fiscal support for PBIS expansion and maintenance in Connecticut.
• Providing evidence-based content and materials to develop interventions to address systematic disproportionality in suspension and expulsion by race and other subgroups.
Members of the PBIS initiative will maintain collaboration with other initiatives at SERC, such as the Initiative on Diversity in Education (IDE), to develop content and materials for training that will support school-based teams with recognizing and addressing disproportionate referral and administrative consequences. This remains a primary goal for 2012-13.
• Collaborating with PBIS school districts to address the discipline gap by gender, race, and special education.
This goal is ongoing. Coaches’ meetings were specially tailored to help recognize the need to address disproportionality. In the future, there will also be a focus on using tools at the school-wide level to identify groups within individual schools that may be experiencing disparate treatment by staff responding to behavioral infractions.
• Sharing Connecticut data with PBIS schools to examine function of behavior and its correlation with the most common behavioral infractions in middle and high schools (defiance/disrespect/insubordination, etc.).
This goal is ongoing. The CT PBIS Collaborative is collecting a substantial data set for analysis and sharing as an increasing number of middle schools and high schools are participating in PBIS training. Schools will be provided guidance on how to use data to design possible responses that may result in decreases of the common infractions and increases in more appropriate behaviors.
• Enhancing the visibility of PBIS in Connecticut through the Summit on PBIS, Web site, and related products.
This goal is ongoing. Related products include PBIS Data Report and Summary: December 2011 (2011), A Family Guide to PBIS in Connecticut (2011), PBIS as an Effective Approach to Bullying Prevention & Intervention: Complying with CT Public Act 11-232 (2012), and SERC Works: Best Practices from SERC: Spring 2012, No. 4 (2012). See www.ctserc.org/pbis.
• Investing in the increased knowledge about PBIS with Connecticut families through the Connecticut Parent Information and Resource Center (CT PIRC).
This goal is ongoing. PBIS continues to be a resource for consulting with CT PIRC about school-based behavioral support to students and families throughout Connecticut. A
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 24
brochure, A Family Guide to PBIS in Connecticut, was created and began dissemination in 2011. This guide will continue to be available to the public via the PBIS Web site.
AmAlaAsiBlaHisWhTot
Sourc
Sourc
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PBIS Data
Appen
merican Indiaaskan Native
an ack spanic/Latinhite tal ce: pbisevals.o
ce: pbisevals.o
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
AmIndian/A
Report and S
ndix A
Table
ToEnrol
an/ e
524no 71530rg
rg
mericanlaskan Native
Summary © S
e 1: Referrals
otal llment En50 057838548 019
Figure A: R
Asian
SERC 2013
s by Ethnicity
% of nrollment1.7%6.8%15.8%24.4%51.3%100.0%Referrals by Et
n
, Elementary
Students w/Referral47126142183462thnicity, Elem
Black
y, 2009-2010 (
ls% of Stuw/Refe.9%1.5%27.330.739.6100.0
mentary, 200
His
(N=8 Schools
udents errals
R%%3%7%6%0%09-2010
spanic/Latino
s)
Referrals4 7 305 386 383 1085
W
% of Enrollme
% of Students
25
% of Referrals.4% .6% 28.1% 35.6% 35.5% 100.0%
White
ent
s w/ Referrals
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 26
Table 2: Referrals by Ethnicity, Elementary, 2010-2011 (N=21)
Total Enrollment
% of Enrollment
Students w/Referrals
% of Studentsw/Referrals
Referrals % of Referrals
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
52 .7% 4 .6% 7 .4%Asian 571 7.3% 11 1.7% 12 .6%Black 1046 13.4% 177 26.7% 615 33.3%Hispanic/Latino 1241 15.9% 138 20.8% 399 21.6%Multi-racial 143 1.8% 13 2.0% 61 3.3%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian
13 .2% 6 .9% 18 1.0%White 4751 60.8% 313 47.3% 737 39.9%Total 7817 100.0% 662 100.0% 1849 100.0%Source: pbisevals.org
Figure B: Referrals by Ethnicity, Elementary, 2010-2011
Source: pbisevals.org
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 27
Table 3: Referrals by Ethnicity, Elementary, 2011-2012 (N=44) Total Enrollment
% of Enrollment
Students w/Referrals
% of Studentsw/Referrals
Referrals % of Referrals
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
109 .7% 5 .3% 11 .2% Asian 1095 6.6% 40 2.0% 77 1.2% Black 2163 13.1% 415 21.2% 1882 30.5% Hispanic/Latino 3538 21.5% 529 27.0% 1549 25.1% Multi-racial 463 2.8% 28 1.4% 90 1.5% Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian
48 .3% 7 .4% 21 .3% White 9062 55.0% 932 47.6% 2536 41.1% Total 16478 100.0% 1956 100.0% 6166 100.0%Source: pbisevals.org
Figure C: Referrals by Ethnicity, Elementary, 2011-2012
Source: pbisevals.org
AmAlaAsiBlaHisUnkWhTot
Sourc
Sourc
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PBIS Data
merican Indiaaskan Native
an ack spanic/Latinknown
hite tal ce: pbisevals.o
ce: pbisevals.o
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
AmeIndian/
Nat
Report and S
ToEnro
an/ e
525no 42436rg
rg
ricanAlaskantive
Summary © S
Table 4: Re
otal llment En58 228 527 469 7 406 695 Figure D: Ref
Asian
SERC 2013
ferrals by Eth
% ofnrollment 1.6%6.2%14.3%12.7%.2%65.1%100.0%ferrals by Eth
Blac
hnicity, Midd
Studentsw/Referra15262221944386847
hnicity, Middl
k His
dle, 2009-201
s als
% of Stw/Ref1.83.126.22..545.100
le, 2009-2010
panic/Latino
0 (N=5)
tudents ferrals
R8%1%2%9%%6%0.0%0
Unknow
Referrals91 74 1069 866 9 1281 3390
wn
% of Enrollme
% of Students
28
% of Referrals2.7%2.2%31.5%25.5%.3%37.8%100.0%
White
ent
s w/ Referrals
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 29
Table 5: Referrals by Ethnicity, Middle, 2010-2011 (N=9)
Total Enrollment
% of Enrollment
Students w/Referrals
% of Students w/Referrals
Referrals % of Referrals
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
49 .9% 7 .5% 31 .6%Asian 220 4.2% 34 2.6% 57 1.1%Black 596 11.4% 231 17.5% 1064 20.9%Hispanic/Latino 1332 25.5% 488 37.0% 1906 37.4%Multi-racial 31 .6% 12 .9% 27 .5%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian
8 .2% 0 .0% 0 .0%White 2984 57.2% 546 41.4% 2016 39.5%Total 5220 100.0% 1318 100.0% 5101 100.0%
Source: pbisevals.org
Figure E: Referrals by Ethnicity, Middle, 2010-2011
Source: pbisevals.org
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 30
Table 6: Referrals by Ethnicity, Middle, 2011-2012 (N=19) Total Enrollment
% of Enrollment
Students w/Referrals
% of Studentsw/Referrals
Referrals % of Referrals
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
74 .6% 12 .4% 80 .7%Asian 425 3.6% 33 1.1% 76 .6%Black 1627 14.0% 660 22.2% 3158 26.6%Hispanic/Latino 2539 21.8% 894 30.0% 3740 31.5%Multi-racial 145 1.2% 30 1.0% 149 1.3%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian
21 .2% 13 .4% 59 .5%White 6817 58.5% 1337 44.9% 4618 38.9%Total 11648 100.0% 2979 100.0% 11880 100.0%Source: pbisevals.org
Figure F: Referrals by Ethnicity, Middle, 2011-2012
Source: pbisevals.org
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 31
Table 7: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2009-2010 (N=3)
Total Enrollment
% of Enrollment
Students w/Referrals
% of Students w/Referrals
Referrals % of Referrals
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
31 1.3% 7 1.3% 15 .7%Asian 97 4.2% 6 1.1% 8 .4%Black 211 9.2% 79 14.4% 331 15.7%Hispanic/Latino 203 8.8% 64 11.7% 224 10.6%White 1758 76.4% 391 71.5% 1534 72.6%Total 2300 100.0% 547 100.0% 2112 100.0%
Source: pbisevals.org
Figure G: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2009-2010
Source: pbisevals.org
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 32
Table 8: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2010-2011 (N=7)
Total Enrollment
% of Enrollment
Students w/Referrals
% of Studentsw/Referrals
Referrals % ofReferrals
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
20 .4% 6 .5% 10 .2%Asian 124 2.5% 16 1.4% 50 .9%Black 362 7.3% 140 11.8% 593 11.1%Hispanic/Latino 925 18.7% 291 24.6% 1561 29.3%Multi-racial 6 .1% 3 .3% 32 .6%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian
2 .0% 6 .5% 8 .1%White 3499 70.9% 722 61.0% 3080 57.7Total 4938 100.0% 1184 100.0% 5334 100.0%Source: pbisevals.org
Figure H: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2010-2011
Source: pbisevals.org
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 33
Table 9: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2011-2012 (N=14)
Total Enrollment
% of Enrollment
Students w/Referrals
% of Students w/Referrals
Referrals % of Referrals
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
84 .7% 16 .6% 53 .4%Asian 601 4.8% 44 1.7% 198 1.5%Black 1638 13.0% 370 14.1% 1791 13.9%Hispanic/Latino 1533 12.2% 426 16.2% 1802 14.0%Multi-racial 76 .6% 19 .7% 115 .9%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian
3 .0% 1 .0% 1 .0%White 8624 68.7% 1754 66.7% 8921 69.3%Total 12559 100.0% 2630 100.0% 12881 100.0%
Source: pbisevals.org
Figure I: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2011-2012
Source: pbisevals.org
Sourc
Sou
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
AmerAlaskAsianBlackHispaUnknWhitTotal
PBIS Data
ce: pbisevals.o
urce: pbisevals
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
AmeIndian/
Nat
rican Indiankan Native n k anic/ Latinonown te l
Report and S
rg
s.org
ricanAlaskantive
TotaEnrollm
n/ 9 16 611o 7522 1971587
Summary © S
Table 10: R
Figure J
Asian
al ment
%Enro.11 382 47.7 127 1
SERC 2013
Referrals by E
J: Referrals b
Blac
% of ollment w6% 1.0%8.5%7.4%1% 2.4%00%
Ethnicity, PK-
by Ethnicity, P
k His
Students w/Referrals12169181316372
-8, 2009-2010
PK-8, 2009-20
panic/Latino
% of Studew/Referr.3%.5%45.4%48.7%.8%4.3%100%
0 (N=3)
010
Unknow
entsrals
Refe
% 7% 11
wn
% of Enrollme
% of Students
ferrals R2 5 701 016 8 53 785
34
White
ent
s w/ Referrals
% of Referrals .1%.3%39.3%56.9%.4%3.0%100%
AmeAlasAsiaBlacHispMultPaciNatiWhiTotaSourc
Sourc
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PBIS Data
erican Indiaskan Native an ck panic/ Latinti-Racial ific Islanderve Hawaiiante
al ce: pbisevals.o
ce: pbisevals.o
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
AmeriIndian/A
Nativ
Report and S
TotEnroll
n/ 577105o 7527/ n
166283rg
rg
canlaskanve
A
Summary © S
Table 11: R
tal ment Enr5 7 51 358 277 1 63 232 1
Figure K: Re
Asian
SERC 2013
Referrals by E
% of rollment w.2%2.7%37.1%26.8%9.8%0%23.4%100.0%eferrals by Et
Black
Ethnicity, PK-
Students w/Referrals08407217200141783thnicity, PK-8
Hispanic/Latin
-8, 2010-2011
s % of Stuw/Refe.0%1.0%52.027.71.3%.0%18%100.0
8, 2010-2011
no Multi-Ra
1 (N=6)
udents errals
R%%0%7%%%%0%
acial Pacific Native
eferrals0 14 1906 1247 60 0 543 3770
Islander/Hawaiian
% of Enrollme
% of Students
35
% of Referrals.0%.4%50.6%33.1%1.6%.0%14.4%100.0%
White
ent
s w/ Referrals
AmeAlasAsiaBlacHispMulPaciNatiWhiTotaSourc
Sourc
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PBIS Data
erican Indiaskan Native an ck panic/ Latinti-racial ific Islanderive Hawaiiaite al ce: pbisevals.o
ce: pbisevals.o
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
AmeriIndian/A
Nativ
Report and S
ToEnroll
an/ 3922no 182r/ n
21558rg
rg
canlaskanve
A
Summary © S
Table 12: R
otal lment En3 0 54 86 5 2 87 77 1
Figure M: R
Asian
SERC 2013
Referrals by Et
% of rollment w.6%1.5%38.4%32.1%.4%.0%27.0%100.0%eferrals by Et
Black
thnicity, PK-8
Students w/Referrals22599389001931185thnicity, PK-8
Hispanic/Latin
8, 2011-2012
s% of Stuw/Refe.2%.2%50.5%32.8%.0%.0%16.3%100.0
8, 2011-2012
no Multi-Ra
(N=16)
udents rrals
Re
%%%%%%%0%
acial Pacific Native
eferrals
2 4 1991 1461 0 0 708 4166
Islander/Hawaiian
% of Enrollme
% of Students
36
% of Referrals.0%.1%47.8%35.1%.0%.0%17.0%100.0%
White
ent
s w/ Referrals
RBA
Pro
Prog
ram
Pu
and
pro-
soc
Popu
latio
n Co
llege
and
Horn
er R
., Su
gaM
cInt
osh,
K.,
Fi
July
, 201
2
37 The
num
Stor
y be
h•
Sinc
e 2
part
icip
aTh
is to
tpu
blic
sc
• Be
twee
nto
sca
linap
prox
imdi
stric
ts
Prop
osed
• As
a re
sSE
RC w
ite
chni
cath
roug
h•
SERC
pr e
Beha
vio
annu
al N
2012
. Th
oppo
rtu
a Co
nneog
ram
Rep
ort
urpo
se: T
o pr
ovid
e st
cial
lear
ning
env
ironm
Resu
lt: P
ositi
ve B
eh C
aree
r Rea
dy.”
i G.,
& A
nder
son
(201
0). E
xam
ilte
r K.,
et a
l. (2
010)
. Prin
cipl
es
St2
Perf
orm
anc
mbe
r of C
onne
ctic
utr
aini
ng in
PBI
S
hind
the
base
line:
20
00,
260
of
Con
ated
in s
ome
leve
l oal
rep
rese
nts
18%
och
ools.
n
2007
-200
8 an
d 20
ng-u
p PB
IS d
istric
t-w
mat
ely
25%
, or
on
(CSD
E, 2
011)
. d
actio
ns to
turn
thul
t of c
onsis
tent
incr
ll co
ntin
ue to
pro
vid
al a
ssist
ance
, coa
chin
SER
C an
d RE
SC c
olla
esen
ted
at th
e U
nive
or E
duca
tion
& R
esea
Nor
thea
st P
BIS
Net
whi
s pro
vide
d sc
hool
leun
ity to
lear
n ab
out n
ectic
ut P
BIS
actio
n pl
at Car
d: S
tate
tu
dent
s with
a c
ontin
men
t whi
le e
limin
atin
havi
oral
Inte
rven
tions
ning
the
evid
ence
bas
e fo
r sch
of su
stai
nabl
e pr
even
tion:
Des
ate
Educ
atio
n Re
so
ce M
easu
re 1
ut
scho
ols t
hat h
avS
by S
ERC/
UCo
nn
nect
icut
’s
publ
ic
sof
PBI
S tr
aini
ng w
ith
or n
early
one
-fifth
o
011-
2012
, 41
dist
rict
wid
e. T
hese
41
dist
ricne
-four
th,
of C
onne
he c
urve
: ea
se in
dist
rict p
artic
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
PBng
, and
eva
luat
ion
toab
orat
ors.
er
sity
of C
onne
ctic
ut
rch
(CBE
R) a
s it h
oste
wor
k Le
ader
ship
For
umea
ders
and
pol
icy
ma
natio
nal P
BIS
effo
rts a
an.
Educ
atio
n Re
nuum
of b
ehav
iora
l sng
raci
al d
ispar
ities
.s a
nd S
uppo
rts (
PBIS
ool-w
ide
posit
ive
beha
vior
sup
igni
ng sc
ale-
up o
f sch
ool-w
ide
ourc
e Ce
nter
e re
ceiv
ed
choo
ls ha
ve
SERC
/UCo
nn.
of t
he s
tate
’s
ts c
omm
itted
ct
s re
pres
ent
ectic
ut’s
166
cipa
tion,
IS
trai
ning
, sc
hool
s
Cent
er fo
r ed
the
first
m
in M
ay
aker
s an
and
to sh
ape
The
Stor
Imp
the
Sev
al Pr
o•
SE sy se•
SE de of•
SE co to esou
rce
Cent
eup
port
s, re
flect
ive
of
) con
trib
utes
to th
e C
ppor
t. Fo
cus o
n Ex
cept
iona
l Chi
lpo
sitiv
e be
havi
or su
ppor
t to
p
25 In
dust
rial P
ark
Perf
ornu
mbe
r of C
onne
cti of
ry b
ehin
d th
e ba
sele
men
tatio
n of
PBI
S w
Scho
ol-w
ide
Eval
uati
uate
s the
crit
ical
fea
pose
d ac
tions
to t
ERC
will
con
tinue
a th
yste
ms a
re in
pla
ce, s
econ
dary
and
tert
iary
ERC
will
exp
and
the
cev
elop
dat
a-re
view
pf i
mpl
emen
tatio
n.
ERC
will
con
tinue
to p
ompr
ehen
sive
coor
do
scho
ols.
050100
Year
1N
=19
Perc
ent o
f SM
eeter
f t
heir
dive
rse
stre
ng
Conn
ectic
ut S
tate
De
ldre
n. 4
2(8)
ro
mot
e du
rabl
e sy
stem
s. P
syc h
Road
, Mid
dlet
own
man
ce M
easu
recu
t sch
ools
sust
aini
f PBI
S w
ith fi
delit
y
elin
e:
w
ith fi
delit
y is
mea
suio
n To
ol (S
ET).
The
Stu
res o
f PBI
S ac
ross
urn
the
curv
e:
hree
-yea
r tra
inin
g cy
scho
ols e
xpan
d pr
act
y in
terv
entio
ns.
com
preh
ensiv
e co
ach
proc
esse
s, a
nd a
sses
s
prov
ide
spec
ific
supp
inat
ion
of te
chni
cal a
Year
2N
=31
ERC/
UCo
nn P
BIS
ing
SET
2011
-201
2
Pos
itive
gt
hs a
nd n
eeds
, in
ord
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
ti
holo
gy in
the
Scho
ols.
47(1
)
, CT
0645
7
(8
6
e 2
ng im
plem
enta
tion
ured
ann
ually
by
SET
asse
sses
and
al
l sch
ool s
ettin
gs.
ycle
. Af
ter u
nive
rsal
tic
es to
incl
ude
hing
net
wor
k,
s sch
ools
by p
hase
s
port
thro
ugh
mor
e as
sista
nce
prov
ided
Year
3N
= 32
Scho
ols
2
Beha
vior
al In
der t
o in
crea
se st
ude
ion
(CSD
E) g
oal:
“All
60) 6
32-1
485
Pe
The
aver
age
num
day
per m
Stor
y be
hind
the
• Ag
greg
ated
dat
year
s acr
oss m
ide
crea
sing
by m
incr
ease
in h
igh
corr
elat
ed w
ithpa
rtic
ipat
ing
in
• Hi
stor
ical
ly, t
heBl
ack
stud
ents
ico
nstit
uted
13.
4po
pula
tion
but
refe
rred
. Pr
opos
ed a
ctio
n•
The
Scho
ol-w
idtr
ack
ODR
dat
a on
the
resu
lts.
• Cr
eate
and
imp
can
shar
e th
eir
prof
essio
nals
ar
00.
20.
40.
60.
811.
21.
4
K-6
Grad 6-
9
Stat
ewid pe
rnter
vent
ions
en
t ach
ieve
men
t in
a
Conn
ectic
ut L
earn
er
ww
w.c
tser
c.or
g
erfo
rman
ce M
em
ber o
f Offi
ce D
iscip
mon
th fr
om C
onne
ct
e ba
selin
e:
ta
dep
ict a
dec
reas
e i
ddle
gra
de le
vels,
wi
mor
e th
an 5
0% si
nce
h sc
hool
and
K-8
ODR
the
incr
ease
in th
e n
PBIS
with
SER
C an
d e
larg
est o
verr
epre
sein
ele
men
tary
scho
o4%
of t
he to
tal e
lem
ere
pres
ente
d 26
.6%
o
ns to
turn
the
curv
e In
form
atio
n Sy
stem
by e
thni
city
and
dev
lem
ent a
mod
el si
tes
syst
ems a
nd p
ract
ice
roun
d th
e st
ate.
des
9Gr
ades
9-12
K (8
-12)
de O
ffice
Dis
cipl
inr 1
00 st
uden
ts p
eand
Supp
orts
a pr
edic
tabl
e, sa
fe,
s Suc
ceed
and
Lea
ve
easu
re 3
lin
e Re
ferr
als (
ODR
s)ic
ut P
BIS
scho
ols.
in O
DRs o
ver t
he p
asth
mid
dle
scho
ol re
feim
plem
enta
tion.
The
R da
ta is
dire
ctly
nu
mbe
r of s
choo
ls U
Conn
. nt
atio
n w
as fo
und
als.
Bla
ck st
uden
ts
enta
ry st
uden
t of
the
stud
ents
bei
ng
e:
m (S
WIS
) will
be
used
velo
p ac
tion
plan
s ba
s pro
gram
whe
re sc
hes
with
oth
er
ne R
efer
rals
er
Day
2007
-200
8
2008
-200
9
2009
-201
0
2010
-201
1
2011
-201
2
s
Appendix B
) per
st fi
ve
erra
ls e m
ong
g d to
se
d
hool
s
PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013
SERC