Special Education and the Social Dynamics of Aggression in Rural Schools

1. Special Education and the Social Dynamics of Aggression in Rural Schools Tom Farmer Abby Hoffman College of Education School of Education Pennsylvania State University University of North Carolina National Research Center on Rural Education Support

2. Collaborators Matt Irvin Dylan Robertson David Estell Man-Chi Leung Kim Dadisman Allen Murray Jana Thompson Amity Crowther Bryan Hutchins

3. Funding Support Centers for Disease Control and Injury Prevention Office of Special Education Programs Institute for Education Sciences Social & Character Development Program National Research Center on Rural Education Support

4. Datasets • Social Integration Study – Chicago & Rural NC • 991 3rd – 6th graders (516 G) 53% W; 40% AA; 7% L • Developmental Pathways of Rural African American Early Adolescents • 406 5th and 6th graders followed throughg high school (244 G) 100% African American • Project REAL – Rural Appalachian Mountains • 315 5th Graders (170 G) 95% White; 5% African American • Project BEST – Rural Coastal Plains and Metropolitan Area in NC • 622 5th graders (332 g) 55% European American, 41% African American, & 4% other • Social & Character Development SACD – Rural NC • 534 2nd Graders (289 G) 57% W; 30% AA; 10% L; & 7% NA

5. Goals and Aims Examine the conceptual foundations of the social relations of rural special education students Summarize our research on classroom social dynamics Summarize our research on the bullying involvement of rural students with or at-risk of mild disabilities Discuss implications for social interventions to support students with mild disabilities in rural schools

6. Conceptual Foundations of the Social Relations of Rural Special Education Students Dominant view in the special education literature is that students with mild disabilities have social skill deficits and are rejected by nondisabled peers Alternative view is that while some special education students are socially marginalized, there is considerable variability in their social competence and peer relations Some students with or at-risk of mild disabilities are well integrated into their classroom social structures, are members of popular peer groups, and have prominent social roles

7. Why the Confusion? Peer Rejection vs. Social Isolation --Peer rejection refers to how well students are liked --Social isolation refers to not associating with peers --Most rejected youth are members of peer groups Sociometric Popularity vs. Perceived Popularity --Sociometrically popular youth are well liked by peers --Perceived popular youth are viewed by peers as “popular” --Many perceived popular youth are not well liked Teachers’ views of peer relations tend to correspond with perceived popularity

8. Subtypes of Aggressive Youth There are two types of aggressive children and adolescents Tough – teacher rated popular & aggressive Troubled – teacher rated unpopular & aggressive

9. Tough (about 10-15% of boys) Factor ______ Aggression ++ Academic Popularity + Affiliative + Olympian ++ Internalizing - Troubled (about 12-20% of boys) Factor ____ Aggression ++ Academic - Popularity - Affiliative -- Olympian - Internalizing + Characteristics of Tough and Troubled Boys Interpersonal Competence Scale Teacher (ICS-T) Ratings

10. Girls’ Aggressive Subtypes • Typically there tends to be only one high aggressive cluster for girls and it is not associated with high popularity or social prominence (may be due to measures focusing on physical and not social aggression) • The exceptions are the rural 2nd grade sample (the girl profiles for Tough and Troubled are similar to those generally found for boys) and the middle school rural African American girls (social aggression was measured)

11. Two Social Worlds of Aggression in School Peer relations of “Tough” and “Troubled” youth demarcate distinct social worlds of aggression in school --Consistent with common conceptions, Troubled children appear to be socially marginalized --However, Tough children appear to be socially prominent, well integrated into popular and socially central peer groups, and influential in the social structure even though they may not be well liked (viewed as cool by a broad range of peers)

12. Why Two Social Worlds of Aggression? Classroom Social Dynamics As children and youth organize their social worlds there is a tendency for natural social dynamics that support conflict and aggression --Social Synchrony --Distinct peer groups (similarity, complementary) --Hierarchical social structures

13. Strategies Youth use to Promote their Social positions and Control of Resources Prosocial Coercive --Physical aggression --Social aggression --Bullying **The most prominent and influential students tend to use both prosocial and coercive strategies

14. Peer Relations of Youth Involved in Bullying Bullies Larger social networks, leaders of peer groups, disliked but socially prominent, unlikely to be victimized by others Bully/Victims Associate with other bully/victims, many troubled youth fit this category Victims Associate with marginalized peers, more likely to be neglected

15. Social Relations of Students with or at-risk of High Incidence Disabilities • Many youth with or at-risk of disabilities fit in Tough, Troubled, and non-aggressive high risk configurations • More likely to associate with aggressive and unpopular peers • More likely to be socially isolated (about 20%) • Tend to view positive peers very favorable except for aggressive students with or at-risk of disabilities who think “Tough” peers are cool

16. Bullying Involvement of Students with or at-risk of High Incidence Disabilities • Students with high incidence disabilities more likely to be perceived as being bullies by both teachers and peers • Teachers tend to rate students with high incidence disabilities higher for being bullied by peers • Students with high incidence disabilities who have aggressive and popular associates have more peer nominations for bullying than all others

17. Implications for Intervention: Supporting the Transition to Middle School in Appalachian Schools Project REAL • Academic Engagement Enhancement • Competence Enhancement Behavior Management • Classroom Social Dynamics Management

18. Implications for Intervention: Pilot Outcomes of Project REAL • Students’ sense of classroom belonging declined sharply between fall and spring in control schools, but remained stable and positive across the year in intervention schools • Students’ positive ratings of classmates’ acceptance of academic effort and achievement declined in control schools but remained positive and stable across the school year in intervention schools • At the end of the intervention year, students in intervention schools showed fewer teacher-rated aggressive behaviors compared to students in control schools • Parallel analyses indicated that students in intervention, compared to control, schools rated their classrooms as less emotionally risky at the end of the school year

19. Implications for Intervention: The Role of Teachers in Classroom Social Dynamics While the context and “mix” of students contribute to whether aggression is associated with social prominence and whether popular-aggressive youth become dominant in the class, it appears that teachers play an important role --Teachers as an “invisible hand” in directing classroom social structures and social dynamics --Considerable variability in teachers’ ability to identify peer groups and social roles (e.g., bullies, victims, leaders) --Teachers appear to have more accurate conceptions of girls’ groups and social roles as compared to the groups and social roles of boys

20. Implications for Interventions: Supporting Students with High Incidence Disabilities • Universal Interventions are needed that focus on classroom social dynamics (i.e., creating contexts that reduce hierarchical social structures) • Functional assessments for students with high incidence disabilities should center on the social functions and supports for their behavior • There is a need to be cognizant of the different subtypes of youth with high incidence disabilities and to establish interventions that correspond with their social roles (i.e., socially prominent, socially marginalized) and their peer affiliation patterns

21. Implications for Intervention: Universal Intervention by teacher awareness --Classroom social hierarchies and social roles --Peer group affiliations and peer support processes --Differences between sociometric popularity, perceived popularity, and peer affiliation

22. Implications for Intervention: Individualized Individualized social interventions for students with high incidence disabilities should be responsive to: --Peer affiliations (i.e., popular peers, aggressive peers, marginalized, socially isolated) --Social roles (i.e., leader, bully, bully/victim, victim) --Interaction patterns (synchronous support & peer reinforcement)

23. Issues in Training and Implementation to Support Teachers • Training Delivery --Inservice --Online support --Consultation • Implementation --Fidelity --Maintenance --Individualization for students with high incidence disabilities and students at risk of being identified for special education services