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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behavioral outcomes are linked to academic outcomes Achievement Gap Discipline Gap

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.

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…)

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.

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

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

Major ODR

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

SWPBS and the discipline gap

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

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

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

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

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

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

Culturally responsive SWPBS

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

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

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.

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

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.

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) .

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 →

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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