Dana McConnell Kathy Ryder

1. Meeting the Needs of Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities within a Culturally Responsive Multi-Level System of Support Dana McConnell Kathy Ryder

2. Outcomes for the Session Reflection on current practices Understanding of benefits for ALL students and staff Strategies to meet the diverse needs of our students Next steps in moving forward

3. We Know……. • To improve the academic success of our children, we must also improve their social success. • Academic and social failures are reciprocally and inextricably related.

4. Power of PBIS “Viewed as outcomes, achievement and behavior are related; viewed as causes of each other, achievement and behavior are unrelated. In this context, teaching behavior as relentlessly as we teach reading or other academic content is the ultimate act of prevention, promise, and power underlying PBIS and other preventive interventions in America’s schools.” Algozzine, Wang, & Violette (2011, p. 16)

5. What do we know about school discipline referrals and SWD? Students with disabilities tend to be over-represented in school discipline (Cooley, 1995, Fabelo et al., 2011; Kresmien, Leone, & Achilles, 2006; Rausch % Skiba, 2006; SRI International, 2006; Zhang, Katsiyannus, & Herbst, 2004).

6. What we know about students with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities Disengaged from school/family/community Most likely disability group to be educated in a segregated setting Highest rates of disciplinary infractions Perceived by teachers as having significantly lower levels of social competence and school adjustment (Lane, Carter, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006)

7. Educational Outcomes for Students w/Disabilities Students w/disabilities are almost 2X as likely to be suspended from school as nondisabled students, with the highest rates among black children with disabilities. 13% of students w/ disabilities in kindergarten through 12th grade were suspended during the 2009-10 school year, compared to 7% of students without disabilities. (Department of Ed.; The New York Times, August 7, 2012)

8. Educational Outcomes for Students with EBD 40-60% drop out of high school (Wagner, 1991, 1996; Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein, 2005) Experience poorer academic performance than Students with SLD (Lane, Carter, Pierson & Glaeser, 2006) 10-25% enroll in post-secondary education (compared to 53% of typical population) (Bullis & Cheney, 1999)

9. Post-Secondary Outcomes for Students with EBD High rates of unemployment/underemployment post-school(Bullis & Cheney, 1999; Kortering, Hess & Braziel, 1996, Wagner 1991; Wehman, 1996) Experience longer delays in obtaining employment lower percentage of employment lower employment rates overall Hold more short-term jobs More likely to be employed part-time and earn less than other students with or without other disabilities. (Wagner, D’Amico, Marder, Newman, & Blackorby 1992)

10. Post-Secondary Outcomes for Students with EBD • High rates of mental health challenges, poverty, and incarceration (Alexander, et al., 1997; Kortering, et al., Lee and Burkham, 1992, Wagner 1992) • Compared to students with or without other disabilities, three to five years after leaving school. (National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students- OSEP, 1994) • Lower rates of marriage • Higher rates of pregnancy • Lower rates of employment • Lower earning rates • Lower rates of registering to vote or voting • Higher rates of arrests- 58% of students with EBD had been arrested at some time during those three to five years. • Low rates of living independently

11. Staff Attitudes toward Students with Disabilities Educators who have negative attitudes toward students with disabilities tend to expect low achievement and inappropriate behavior from those students. (Beattie, Anderson, & Antonak, 1997) Negative attitudes and actions of others can negatively affect the behavior, social relationships, education, employment, and health of individuals with disabilities(Yuker, 1994) Students with disabilities experience more rejection by peers than do students without disabilities (Heinrichs, 2003).

12. Beliefs about working with students with EBD . . . Teachers indicated they felt stressed when working with students with disabilities because they did not possess knowledge, or feel competent (Forlin, 2001) Both special education and general education teachers indicated they received little to no pre-service training related to effective inclusion for students with disabilities. In fact, Special education teachers reported receiving less training in this area than did general education teachers. (Pavri, 2004)

13. Why School-wide PBIS? “For the majority of general educators, fidelity to the process of PBIS implementation will be most critical at the primary prevention level of intervention, including: • School-wide • Classroom • Non-classroom settings Because the majority of students they will encounter will not be at-risk or have an elevated risk of anti-social behavior. (Walker, et. al. 1996)

14. Why PBIS for Students with EBD? To implement PBIS as a continuum and with fidelity…… Teachers of students with the most challenging behaviors or displaying signs of antisocial behavior patterns, need to carry out the process of PBIS with fidelity comprehensively, or at all three levels of prevention. These levels of prevention include: The structure and process of Functional Behavioral Assessment Data-based decision making Individual response to intervention systems De-escalation of behavior events Linking community supports to families and youth needs Self- monitoring Behavioral measurement(Walker et. al, 1996)

15. Historical Development of PBIS During the 1980s, a need was identified for improved selection, implementation, and documentation of effective behavioral interventions for students with EBD. (Greshan, 1991; Sugai & Horner, 1999; Walker et al., 1996) Researchers at the University of Oregon began a series of applied demonstrations, research studies, and evaluation projects. Reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 – received a grant to establish the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports to disseminate and provide technical assistance to schools on evidence based practices for improving supports for students with EBD.

16. Historical Development of PBIS cont’d Results: greater attention directed toward prevention, research-based practices, data-based decision making, school-wide systems, explicit social skills instruction, team-based implementation and professional development. (Sugai & Horner, 2002; Horner, Sugai, Anderson, 2010) PBIS is the marriage of behavioral theory, behavioral analysis, positive behavior supports, and prevention and implementation science developed to improve how schools select, organize, implement, and evaluate behavioral practices in meeting the needs of ALL students. (Sugai et al, 2000)

17. Healthy School Culture “Educators have an unwavering belief in the ability of all of their students to achieve success, and they pass that belief on to others in overt and covert ways. Educators create policies and procedures and adopt practices that support their belief in the ability of every student.” - Kent D. Peterson in Cromwell, 2002.

18. Cultural Change “Structural change that is not supported by cultural change will eventually be overwhelmed by the culture, for it is in the culture that any organization finds meaning and stability.” Schlechty, Shaking Up the Schoolhouse: How to Support and Sustain Educational Innovation (2001), p. 52

19. School System Culture and Beliefs • What is the culture of your building? • Is there a belief that students identified as having an Emotional/Behavioral Disability should be included in our school-wide system/data? • Is there a negative view of students with disabilities? • Is there a view of students with EBD should be taught in a separate classroom? • Are you ALL working towards the same mission? • What are your non-negotiable strategies and practices to be used in order to reach your vision?

20. Data Audit • Behavior Data • ODRs per day per mo. • By behavior • By time of day • By location • By infraction • Other including M/m • Group, etc. • Attendance • EE or LRE • Detentions • Suspensions I/O • Expulsions • Academic data per group/individual • Etc.

21. Think about this…….. • Academics: • CCSS, CCEE = Smarter Balanced • Behavior: • Behavior Matrix = ODR’s

22. MYTH: We can’t include SWD in our data! SWD will skew our data We have this one kid who . . . We will look bad when we present data to the School Board If we keep track of every thing he/she does, that’s all we would have time to do Others?

23. Reflect on Current Practices • What are your current practices for teaching behavioral expectations? • What about for students with disabilities? • Are ‘beliefs’ reflected in actual practice? • Where is the re-teaching and practice for students with EBD happening? • Included in general education, separate classroom, or not happening at all? • Do you have the same behavioral expectations for your students with disabilities? • Are the expectations/IEP goals linked back to school-wide expectations? • Are students with disabilities included in your school-wide discipline data? • If so, how are you using this data?

24. ACTIVITY: Think-Pair-Share • Reflect on your current practices: • What is the belief and school culture about students with EBD in your school? • How are you connecting students with EBD IEP goals and support with your school-wide expectations? • How are you including students with EBD in your data collection system? • At the system level AND individual level?

25. How do you disaggregate your data? Are you disaggregating at the systems level? What about at the program/intervention level? Are you looking at the effects and impacts at each level, including student level? Resources: www.wisconsinpbisnetwork.org/assets/files/resources/1359755675_DisaggregationOfDataInPBIS.pdf http://www.wisconsinpbisnetwork.org/assets/files/resources/1375899857_RiskRatioCalculator.xlsm

26. Main Ideas cont’d • Build “decision systems” not “data systems” • Use data in decision layers • Is there a problem? (i.e. overall rate of ODRs) • Localize the problem (i.e. location, problem behavior, students, time of day) • Get specific. Do not speak in code • Do not drown in the data • It is “Okay” to be doing well • Be efficient

27. Main Ideas cont’d • Do we have a problem? • Refine the description of the problem? • What behavior, Who, Where, When, Why • Analyze the behavior- Check your filter • Test hypotheses • “I think the problem on the playground is due to Eric” • “ We think the lunch period is too long” • “We believe the end of ‘block schedule” is used poorly” • Define how to monitor if solution is effective

28. ALL Students “Equality means we don’t find a place for her; we make this the place for her.” (Rob Horner, 2013) The single largest reason: students are moved social behavior teachers leave social behavior

29. Key Concept Put outcomes for students with IEP’s into the context of schools as systems to educate and support ALL students.

30. System Level Supports Snapshot • Universal • Teaching the expected school-wide behaviors to ALL • Selected/Tier II • CICO = Check-in/Check-out • SAIG = Social Academic Instruction Group • Simple FBA/BIP = Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior Intervention Plan • Intensive/Tier III • Complex FBA/BIP • RENEW/WRAP

31. Supports for students with EBD within Your PBIS Framework • Addressing known behaviors up front • Prepping for the start of the year • Scheduling pre-teaching and practice times • Prepping all staff on how to handle individual student behavior plans • Hold them to the standards • Differentiate when needed. An IEP is NOT a pass for lower expectations. • Provide the above and beyond

32. Supports for students with EBD within Your PBIS Framework • Teaching replacement behaviors • How are you identifying behavior that needs to be replaced? • How is the replacement behavior being practiced for mastery? • How is this incorporated as part of your system processes? • How is this being used within your system BEFORE a referral or identification of EBD? • Teaching de-escalation techniques- to students and staff

33. Transition from an Alternate Environment back to General Education • Transfer of skills • Goals and decision rules are linked back to system expectations (behavior matrix) • Use of data to determine effectiveness • Links back to school-wide expectations • Once identified as having an Emotional/Behavioral Disability: • Consider the skills that qualified the student for special education and how that connects back to the school-wide expectations

34. ACTIVITY: Think-Pair-Share • Reflect on your systems level supports: • Are they effective with students in your school? • How do you know? • Are you disaggregating your data? • What levels of support do you have in place? • What does this look like for students identified as having an Emotional/Behavioral Disability? • What is the role of your special educators? • Are they part of the determination of the “inclusion” plans?

35. Next Steps. What is your next move? • Do we have a healthy culture? • If not, then what? • If so, what’s next? • Identify where effective practices are already occurring. • Are expectations for students with disabilities an extension of the system or is it something ‘separate’? • Is your system setup to address challenges/barriers? • Does coaching exist to support this? • Do you have non-negotiable practices and strategies? • What does collaboration look like? • What professional development opportunities do you have?

36. Thank you! Questions? Comments?