1 / 61

Culturally Competent School-wide Positive Behavior Support: From Theory to Evaluation Data

7 th International Conference on Positive Behavior Support St. Louis, Missouri March 26, 2010. Culturally Competent School-wide Positive Behavior Support: From Theory to Evaluation Data. Tary J. Tobin ( ttobin@uoregon.edu ) Claudia G. Vincent ( clavin@uoregon.edu ) University of Oregon.

komala
Download Presentation

Culturally Competent School-wide Positive Behavior Support: From Theory to Evaluation Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 7th International Conference on Positive Behavior SupportSt. Louis, MissouriMarch 26, 2010 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

  2. Advance Organizer • 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

  3. Behavioral outcomes for CLD students—the discipline gap 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Behavioral outcomes are linked to academic outcomes Achievement Gap Discipline Gap

  8. Recent recommendations for researching disproportionality • “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.

  9. Theoretical framework of discipline gap • 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…)

  10. 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.

  11. Theoretical framework of cultural and linguistic diversity(factors not under the school’s control…?) School’s Cultural Identity Student’s Cultural Identity Cultural Stress Individual Language Institutional Language Socio-Economic Status Rules & Expectations Outcomes Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Data STUDENT BEHAVIOR Systems Ethnicity Achievement Goals Immigration Status Practices Administrative Structures Gender Tradition Cultural Responsiveness

  12. SWPBS and the discipline gap • What does the discipline gap look like in schools implementing SWPBS compared to schools not implementing SWPBS?

  13. Major ODR

  14. 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

  15. SWPBS and the discipline gap

  16. SWPBS and the discipline gap • 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

  17. Can SWPBS help to narrow the discipline gap? Social competence & academic achievement OUTCOMES Supporting Staff behavior Supporting Decision-making DATA SYSTEMS PRACTICES Supporting Student behavior

  18. Culturally responsive systems to support staff behavior • 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

  19. Can SWPBS help to narrow the discipline gap? Social competence & academic achievement OUTCOMES Supporting Staff behavior Supporting Decision-making DATA SYSTEMS PRACTICES Supporting Student behavior

  20. Culturally responsive practices to support student behavior • Culturally relevant behavior support • Teach behaviors that are socially relevant to CLD students • Culturally validating behavior support • Acknowledge students’ cultural identity as a strength

  21. Can SWPBS help to narrow the discipline gap? Social competence & academic achievement OUTCOMES Supporting Staff behavior Supporting Decision-making DATA SYSTEMS PRACTICES Supporting Student behavior

  22. Culturally responsive decision-making • 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

  23. Can SWPBS help to narrow the discipline gap? Social competence & academic achievement OUTCOMES Supporting Staff behavior Supporting Decision-making DATA SYSTEMS PRACTICES Supporting Student behavior

  24. Culturally responsive outcomes • 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

  25. Culturally responsive SWPBS

  26. Lots of work to be done!! • 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

  27. Advance Organizer • Part II • Strategies for reducing disproportionate disciplinary exclusions for African-American students • Recommendations for future research

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

  29. Studied 94 schools for 2 years • 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

  30. 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.

  31. 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) .

  32. 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

  33. Scale for “In Place” Status • 0 = Not in place • 1 = Partially in place • 2 = In place Also asks about “priority for improvement”

  34. 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

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

  36. Additional information on calculating the Relative Rate Index (RRI) can be found at http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/juvenile/dmc

  37. 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.

  38. 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 →

  39. Using the same hypothetical data to calculate the RRI: • 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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

  42. 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.

  43. Divided the 94 schools into 2 groups • 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.

  44. 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

  45. 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

More Related