1 / 32

Meeting AYP : How PBS Supports Academic Growth for Schools

Meeting AYP : How PBS Supports Academic Growth for Schools. Chris Borgmeier, Ph.D. & Amanda Sanford, Ph.D. cborgmei@pdx.edu asanford@pdx.edu Portland State University www.web.pdx.edu/~cborgmei/. http://www.alsig.org/images/trianglechart_. How PBS impacts AYP & Academic Achievement.

csears
Download Presentation

Meeting AYP : How PBS Supports Academic Growth for Schools

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. Meeting AYP: How PBS Supports Academic Growth for Schools Chris Borgmeier, Ph.D. & Amanda Sanford, Ph.D. cborgmei@pdx.eduasanford@pdx.edu Portland State University www.web.pdx.edu/~cborgmei/

  2. http://www.alsig.org/images/trianglechart_

  3. How PBS impacts AYP & Academic Achievement

  4. Research has consistently shown that the amount of instructional time is highly correlated with student achievement (Brophy, 1988; Fisher, Berliner, Filby, Marliave, Cahen, Dishaw, 1980) • If acceptable instruction is in place, then improving the behavioral climate of the school will allow that instruction to be more effective.

  5. Academic Learning Time: Typical School 1170 School Year (6.5 hours x 180 days) - 65 Absenteeism (1 day/month x 10 months) = 1105 Attendance Time (Time in School) - 270Non-instructional time (1.5 hrs./day for recess, lunch, etc) = 835 Allocated Time (Time scheduled for teaching) - 209 (25% of allocated time for administration, transition, discipline-15 minutes/hour) = 626 Instructional time (time actually teaching) - 157 Time off task (Engaged 75% of time) = 469 Engaged Time (On task) - 94 Unsuccessful Engaged Time (Success Rate 80%) = 375 Academic Learning Time Efficiency Rating = 32% Education Resources Inc., 2005

  6. Academic Learning Time: Effective School 1170 School Year (6.5 hours x 180 days) - 65 Absenteeism (1 day/month x 10 months) = 1105 Attendance Time (Time in School) - 270Non-instructional time (1.5 hrs./day for recess, lunch, etc) = 835 Allocated Time (Time scheduled for teaching) - 125 (15% of allocated time for administration, transition, discipline-9 minutes/hour) = 710 Instructional time (actually teaching-710 vs. 626) - 71 Time off task (Engaged 90% of time) = 639 Engaged Time (639 vs. 469 On task) - 64 Unsuccessful Engaged Time (Success Rate 90%) = 575 Academic Learning Time Efficiency Rating = 49% Education Resources Inc., 2005

  7. The Difference: Typical vs. Effective Schools • Unallocated Non-Instructional Time • 75% vs. 85% = 84 more hours • Difference in 15 minutes vs. 9 minutes/hour • Teaching expectations, teaching transitions, managing appropriate and inappropriate behavior efficiently • Engagement Rate • 75% vs. 90% = 86 more hours • Management of groups, pacing • Success Rate • 80% vs. 90% = 30 more hours • Appropriate placement, effective teaching • So what? • 200 hours more academic learning time (575 vs. 375) • 53% more ALT • 95 more days in school (4-5 more months of school!) Education Resources Inc., 2005

  8. Clip from Colvin Video to demonstrate

  9. Cost Benefit Analysis Reactive Discipline v. PBS Oregon Middle School Example 5100 referrals = 76,500 min. @ 15 min./referral = 1275 hrs. = 159 days @ 8 hrs/day almost an entire school year • Principal was at work 16 hr./day and it didn’t help • Implemented PBS and referrals were reduced by over half in first year

  10. Administrative Benefit – SW PBSSpringfield MS, MD 2001-2002 2277 Discipline referrals 2002-2003 -1322 referrals = 955 42% improvement = 14,325 min. @15 min./referral = 238.75 hrs = 40 days Admin. Time gained

  11. Instructional Benefit – SW PBSSpringfield MS, MD Pre-PBS 2277 Discipline referrals Post PBS -1322 referrals = 955 42% improvement = 42,975 min. @ 45 min. = 716.25 hrs = 119 days Instructional time gained

  12. Research on implementation of SW PBS & Academic outcomes

  13. Class-wide behavior support increased the time students receive academic instruction. Putnam, Handler and O’Leary-Zonarich (2003) Putnam, Handler, Rey and O’Leary-Zonarich (2002)

  14. Inner City Middle School • Findings after 3 years of implementing SW-PBS: • reductions in ODRs and suspensions • increases in mathematics test scores from baseline to year three. • reading scores did not increase from baseline to year 1, but positive changes were documented from year one to year three. (Larsen, Steele, and Sailor, 2006)

  15. Improved Scores on Standardized tests following SW-PBS • Urban Elementary School increased reading and math scores on standardized tests (Putnam, Handler, & O’Leary-Zonarich, 2003) • Urban Middle School reading comprehension and mathematics percentile ranks on standardized tests improved from the first (pre-intervention) to the second (intervention) test dates, increasing 18 and 25 percentage points respectively (Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, and Feinberg, 2005)

  16. New Hampshire state PBS Initiative (Muscott, Mann & LeBrun, 2008) • 28 schools implementing PBS in first cohort • 1 pre, 13 elem, 6 MS, 4 HS, 4 mixed level • Reduction of: • 6010 ODRs, 1032 suspensions, • Reductions recovered 1701 days of student learning • PBS Implementation associated w/: • Academic gains in math occurred in 16/22 (73%) of schools that achieved 80% or better on the SET • Academic gains = increase in percent of students achieving basic or above on state math test • Improvement in language arts were less pervasive

  17. Illinois • Schools Achieving 80/80 on the SET -- 62% of 3rd grade students met the Illinois State Achievement Test Reading Standard (n=52) • School Not achieving 80/80 on the SET -- 47% of 3rd grade students met the Illinois State Achievement Reading Test Standard (n=69) (Horner, Sugai, Eber, & Lewandowski, 2004)

  18. Level of Improvement PBS v. Non-PBS schools in 1 Oregon District

  19. McIntosh, Chard, Boland & Horner District implementing both SW-PBS & SW Reading model

  20. Several studies have illustrated that schools implementing School-wide PBS have decreased problem behavior, increased time spent in academic instruction, and are associated with improved academic outcomes. • Current research is encouraging, but remains descriptive in nature and does not have the experimental control needed to confirm a relationship between school-wide PBS and improved academic performance.

  21. Simply providing a research-based curriculum may not provide all students access, particularly if the learning environment is chaotic and unsafe. • And implementing School-Wide PBS may not reduce problem behavior if students have such low skills that classroom instruction is aversive. • Academic and behavioral success may be symbiotic, as an effective behavior system allows effective academic instruction to take place.

  22. Conditions of Full implementation of SW-PBS • Classroom management and curriculum variables would be adapted so academic tasks become less aversive • reduction in ODRs would mean more minutes spent in academic instruction • the minutes spent in academic instruction would be more effective • there would be less peer support for academic failure, and • there would be an increase in the structured prompts, contingent feedback and support for academic behavior. We might hypothesize that with these conditions in place a school could affect the academic gains of students. (Putnam, Horner & Algozzine, 2006)

  23. Of course, these same students will not learn to read in a school or classroom that is behaviorally chaotic. • In order to have students receive an effective education we need effective behavior support interventions, an empirically validated curriculum as well as effective instruction.

  24. Academic-Behavior Message STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Good Teaching Behavior Management Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems

  25. References • Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide positive behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 701-712. • McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 146-154. • McIntosh, K., Flannery, K.B., Sugai, G, Braun, D., & Cochrane, K.L. (in press). Relationships between academics and problem behavior in the transition from middle school to high school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. • McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Good, R. H. (2006). The use of reading and behavior screening measures to predict non-response to School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Review, 35, 275-291. • McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., & Braun, D. H. (in press). Reading skills and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education. • Nelson, J. R., Johnson, A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53-62. • Putnam, Horner & Algozzine (2006). Academic Achievement and the Implementation of School-wide Positive Behavior Support, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Newsletter, 3.

More Related