Review of School-Based Interventions

1. Review of School-Based Interventions Part I

2. General Conclusions • Useful by Anyone • By and large, at-risk children and adolescents have the same needs as other students, • But the need is more acute and often less provided • Finely-tooled interventions are more effective, BUT • For those in great need, nearly any positive additions are beneficial--especially those listed above • For those in less need, specific interventions are more effective (and cost effective)

3. Supportive relationships are immensely helpful • Not only with the student: Partnerships are also effective

4. “Voice in the Wilderness” • Creating a stable, safe place to go to • Safe and positive environments and interactions

5. Nurturing traits • Perseverance, self-efficacy, responsibility • Even domain-specific self-efficacy is useful • Optimism and hope • Social skills • Empathy, perspective taking, positive sum solutions

6. Coping skills • Stress management • Modeling and helping with school-related may generalize • And help with academics • Writing about test anxiety helps reduce it and improve performance • Constructive recreation • Intelligence and personality important, but generally stable • “Strength of mind,” however, is manipulable

7. A Little More Detail About Generally-Effective Practices • Home environment very important, but • Herring & Wahler (2003) • “Responsiveness” and “negativity” in 2nd and 3rd grade students • Teachers' responsiveness covaried with children's positive or negative externalized behaviors • Teachers' responsiveness accounted for most of the variance in the children's classroom negativity • Children's home behavior also accounted for significant variance in their school behavior • Children's home responsiveness was the better predictor of their responsiveness

8. High-quality teacher–child relationships can lead to positive social-emotional development • Conflictual early teacher–child relationships predict later behavior problems • Seems especially important among high-risk children • But is often worse in poor schools • Frequent two-way engagement marked by mutual respect, responsive feedback, sincerity • Involving parents and connecting them with each other also great (Small, 2009)

9. Classroom environment • Explicit instructions--especially children but also adolescents • Clean, warm, engaging • Stable framework that allows spontaneity within it • High-quality teaching • Education is among the best hopes for most disadvantaged US children for improved quality of life

10. Parent-teacher collaborations addressing student behavior and academic performance • Sheridan et al. (e.g., 2009), Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) • Intervention that engages parents, teachers, and a behavioral consultant • In collaborative, structured problem solving • To address shared academic, behavioral, or social-emotional concerns for a student

11. Goals are: • Enhance academic, social-emotional, and behavioral outcomes for children • Develop collaborative family-school partnerships • CBC-involved children displayed at school: • Reduced externalizing problem behaviors • Increased social/adaptive skill • CBC-involved teachers reported greater improvements in their relationships with parents of children involved in CBC • Note that improvement in parent-teacher relationships accounted for the positive CBC effect on children's increased adaptive skills

12. Needs with Age: Young Children • Pretty much everything • Basic social skills • Identifying emotions • Perspective taking • Self-regulation • But understanding both cultural differences and children's limits • Zones of proximal development • Physiological • Nutrition • Sleep • Exercise

13. Children • Transitional time between early childhood and adolescence • Self-identity, coping skills, general concepts of the world (justice, fairness, reciprocity) • Often strong but untested achievement motivation • Self-efficacy and optimism • Coping and perseverance • Continued honing of social and emotional skills • Using relationships to develop interpersonal skills • Student-specific interventions more possible and effective

14. Adolescents • To the extent previous development has been completed, new development focuses on self-identity and goal-directed behavior • Still not adults, generally same areas as children, but • More tailored and domain-specific • More modifying existing behaviors and establishing new • However, habits are context-specific, so your class is an opportunity to address bad trajectories • Modeling and paired/group activities for peer modeling • Self-efficacy and responsibility taking • Also • Perspective taking • Work skills (how to take notes, study, set goals, plan) • Practice making decisions

15. Interventions in Childhood • Early intervention is good • Preschool very helpful, especially for at-risk children (e.g., Pianta et al., 2009) • But not nearly as good as programs directed towards under-served children and families • Student-teacher relationship important for limiting externalizing behaviors • Training programs aimed at increasing teachers’ knowledge of developmentally appropriate behavior and practice can positively influence their attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Fukkink & Lont, 2007)

16. Both benefit when teacher learn ways to improve this behavior • Whittaker et al. (2010) • Importance of relationship • Teacher-reported conflict appeared to be most highly correlated with children’s externalizing behaviors suggesting that this may be the most important characteristic of teacher–child relationship quality in predicting children’s concurrent externalizing behaviors

17. Teacher–child closeness and positive interactions were negatively associated with teacher reports of aggressive behaviors • Teacher–child conflict and dependency were positively associated teacher reports of aggressive behaviors • Conflict was also positively associated with teacher-reported attention problems and observed child noncompliance. • Effect of training in child development and behavior management • Used the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework as a tool to train teachers to assess and promote age-appropriate behaviors

18. Reviews of Some Large-Scale Programs • Head Start • Carolina Abecedarian Project • Chicago Child-Parent Center Education Program • Perry Preschool

19. Head Start • Launched as part of LBJ's “War on Poverty” in 1964 as a summer school program to teach low-income children kindergarten prep skills • In 1965 launched program that became Sesame Street • Too little, but expanded under the Head Start Act of 1981 • As of 2005, 22 million children have participated

20. Not a unitary approach or intervention, enrollment largely income based • Also those with disabilities and emergency services • Tailors services to needs for individual families • But includes holistic health, education, and social services • Education standards for Head Start became the national standards • Health includes physical and dental checkups and screenings • Also mental health & nutrition • Social mostly assist families to find other services

21. Efficacy of Head Start • Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (2005) • Randomly-assigned sample of 4,667 3- and 4-year olds from 23 states

22. Cognition • Small to moderate positive impacts for both 3- and 4-year-old children, including • Pre-reading • Pre-writing • Vocabulary • Parental reports of children’s literacy skills. • No significant impact on • Oral comprehension • Phonological awareness • Early mathematics skills

23. Social-Emotional Domain • For children who entered the study at 3 • Small impact on prevalence of problem behaviors • No effect on • Social skills • Approaches to learning • Social competencies

24. Health Domain • For 3-year-olds • Small to moderate effects on: • Higher parent reports of children’s access to health care • Better health status • For 4-year-olds • Moderate effect on access to health care • No effect on health status

25. Parenting Practices Domain • For 3-year-olds • Higher use of educational activities • Lower use of physical discipline • No effect on safety practices. • For 4-year-olds • Higher use of educational activities • No impacts for discipline or safety practices

26. Carolina Abecedarian Project (Campbell & Ramey, 1994) • Involved pre-school children • Studied separately the effects of • Intensive pre- and early child education • High quality child- and health care • Home visits to promote healthy parenting and school involvement • 10-year follow-up (at age 12) found higher IQ and academic achievement score than controls • Less benefit from only school-age intervention

27. Child-Parent Center (CPC) Education Program • Originally created to serve families in high-poverty neighborhoods not being served by Head Start, etc. • Since 1967 (almost as old as Head Start) • Currently operates in 11 Chicago public schools (Title I) • Federally funded

28. Program Overview • Focuses on P-3 academic preparation • In the schools the children will/are attending • Often on-site preschool facilities • Use student-centered pedagogy • Low student- teacher ratios • To develop basic reading, writing, and math skills

29. Parental participation • A parent must volunteer with CPC twice a month • Also learn about child devel.; literacy & school readiness skills; parenting skills; health, safety, nutrition • Families receive financial support

30. Program Evaluation • Amazingly well-studied by Reynolds et al. (2011, further findings) • Enduring effects were strongest for • Preschool • Boys • Children of parents with low education • Long-term benefit largely education and SES

31. Perry Preschool(Schweinhart, 2003) • Included many factors shown effective: • Regular academic-oriented activities for children • Rich learning environment • Qualified teachers • 6:1 student-teacher ratio • Home visits to enhance parenting strategies for adults. • Sustained effort (2 calendar years) • Also included a weekday morning preschool routine combined with weekly home visits by program staff.

32. In additional to positive initial effects; • 15-year follow-up found • Increased IQ (within student, relative to pre-program levels) • Higher standardized school assessment scores • Fewer years in special education programs • Fewer conduct and behavior problems • 30-year follow-up (i.e., age ~40) • Lower rates of crimes committed • Higher average monthly earnings