How Do PBIS, Student Engagement and Common Core Learn to Play Together?

1. How Do PBIS, Student Engagement and Common Core Learn to Play Together? Don Kincaid, Ed.D. Brian Gaunt, Ph.D. University of South Florida

2. Agenda • Context – Implementing multiple initiatives • CCSS Overview and Implications • PBS and Academic Achievement Relations • “Student Engagement” as keystone • Case Example

3. Mission and Vision The collaborative vision of the FL PS/RtI & FLPBS/MTSS Projects is to: • Enhance the capacity of all Florida school districts • to successfully implement and sustain a multi-tiered system of student supports with fidelity in every school; • Accelerate and maximize student academic and social-emotional outcomes • through the application of collaborative data-based problem solvingutilized by effective leadership at all levels of the educational system; • Inform the development, implementation, and ongoing evaluation • of an integrated, aligned, and sustainable system of service delivery that prepares all students for post-secondary education and/or successful employment within our global society.

4. RTI + PBS = MTSS RtI BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS Tier III: Comprehensive & Intensive Interventions – Tier II: Strategic Interventions - Target Group Interventions – Some At-Risk Students Tier I: Universal Interventions – All Students (PBS Tier I) • RtI ACADEMIC SYSTEMS • Tier III: Comprehensive & Intensive Interventions – • Tier II: Strategic Interventions-Small Group and/or technology assisted instruction • Tier I: Core Curriculum – All Students

5. Assumptions • Multiple initiatives implemented in isolation will compete for finite implementation resources. • A framework is required that links all “improvement” related initiatives being implemented. • MTSS provides a framework to align expectations, instruction, assessment, and data-based decision-making. • Linking academic standards and behavior expectations will support integrated implementation efforts.

6. Effective school-wide and classroom wide behavior support is linked to increased academic engagement. Improved academic engagement with effective instruction is linked to improved academic outcomes. The systems needed to implement effective academic supports and effective behavior supports are very similar. Linking Academic and Behavior Supports

7. Who is implementing CCSS?

8. What is CCSS? • State-led initiative through the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) & National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center). • Benchmarked to international standards to ensure competitive workforce in emerging global markets. • Informed by diverse community partners, parent organizations, college institutions, employers, etc. • Increased expectations and instructional “rigor” • Goal of ensuring all students have skills to be college or career ready post HS.

9. Why are CCSS important? • “The standards are clear and concise to ensure that parents, teachers, and students have a clear understanding of the expectations in reading, writing, speaking and listening, language and mathematics in school.” • “The standards are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce.” CCSS Website : http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions

10. What’s New about CCSS? • Integrate academic content • Emphasis on listening & speaking skills (i.e., social skills): http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/SL • Organization of standards • Anchor standards (cross content alignment) • Grade specific standards (EOY and progression) • “In short, students who meet the Standards develop the skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening that are the foundation for any creative and purposeful expression in language.” http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

11. What is Missing? “While ELA and content area literacy components described herein are critical to college and career readiness, they do not define the whole of such readiness. Students require a wide-ranging, rigorous academic preparation and, particularly in the early grades, attention to such matters as social, emotional, and physical development and approaches to learning.” CCSS Website – ELA Introduction (p. 6)

12. Implementing CCSS • CCSS will require significant changes and improvements in instructional methods among educators. • CCSS will require in many cases changes in roles and responsibilities for leaders, teachers, and students. • Use of rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order thinking skillsis the intended focus for revising instructional practices. If you had to guess, what are some unintentional effects of the changes needed to implement CCSS?

13. Implementing CCSS • How significant are the changes that will be needed at all levels of the system to implement CCSS with fidelity? • Do you think districts and schools have the organizational capacity and critical readiness to implement CCSS with fidelity and on time? • Given the significant changes required of teaching practices, it is possible that teachers will misinterpret “increased rigor” with “increasing work load”? • How does CCSS impact classroom management? • Teacher evaluations • Teacher skills • Teacher-student relationships

14. Issues for Discussion • How do we make the case for PBS in a CCSS context? • What are some points of contact for integrating PBS in CCSS? • Core behavioral system as foundation for academic success • “rigor” or “push” may create a need for more intensive classroom interventions (e.g., frustration for adults and students) • Common, Integrated Data-based Problem Solving process

15. Reflection How do we promote SWPBS with fidelity in a context of implementing CCSS as the priority?

16. Linking CCSS and PBS Student Engagement

17. Traditional Definition • Student Engagement: “commitment to and investment in learning, identification and belonging at school, and, in terms of participation in the school environment and initiation of an activity to accomplish an outcome, is associated with desired academic, social, and emotional learning outcomes.” (Christenson et al, 2008)

18. Concerns • Construct of SE is further complicated by the “lack of clarity about what is included under the larger umbrella of student engagement” (Christenson et al, 2008) • Tendency to equate SE as solely the responsibility of the student (John is not engaged so we can’t get him to learn.) • Tendency to treat the construct as a real entity and not attend to the behaviors that indicate lack of engagement (We really need to increase student engagement…so what does it mean?) • Tendency to think of engagement in isolation and not in the context of the task demands (either academic or social). It is a relational construct.

19. What is important for us? • Clarify the Student Engagement (SE) construct • Discuss how to conceptualize, utilize and evaluate SE within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) framework • Assist districts and schools to distribute the responsibility for SE across the community, family, school (administration and teachers) as well as the student • Assist districts in understanding the relationship between engagement, student outcomes and educator performance evaluations

20. New Definition Student Engagement (SE) is defined by the degree to which students participate in all aspects of the school environment (academic and social) and assume the appropriate level of responsibility for their own learning and behavior.

21. Extending the Definition • A strong relationship exists between the level of student engagement and student performance and affects significantly the probability of positive, post-secondary outcomes. • Presence or absence of contextual factors influence student factors. • evidence-based and measurable instructional factors, • school/learning environment factors, and • parent/community involvement factors. • Thus, it is critically important to view SE is a reciprocal processbetween contextual factors and student factors.

22. Student Factors • Student attitudes, perceptions and beliefs: • Perceptions of the school environment, • Connectedness with peers or staff, and • Perceptions of staff caring or supports for their learning, • Self efficacy to engage in tasks assigned& accomplish their goals

23. Student Factors • Student skills (a continuum of): • Academic performance skills • Academic behavior skills • “academic enablers” – Elliot, DiPerna, & Shapiro, 2001) • “engagement”, “self-management & monitoring”, etc. • Social behavior skills

24. Instructional Factors - Proximal • Classroom instruction (proximal factors) • Instructional strategies selected with existing student engagement behaviors in mind and/or the necessity to teach the engagement behaviors in order to ensure student academic performance • I.e., match between student need and instruction.

25. Instructional Factors - Distal • Classroom Supports (i.e., roles, responsibilities, procedures and resources used to support instruction in the classroom). • Evidence-based instructional strategies • Fidelity and sufficiency • Differentiated instruction • Expectations of the classroom are effectively taught and understood by students • Lesson plans include support planning • Curricular relevance or cultural responsiveness

26. School/Learning Environment Factors • Proximal influence (e.g., classroom routines, student-teacher relations, expectations) • teachers perception of instances of misbehavior or failure to achieve academic goals • responsiveness to student concerns • creating positive and effective learning environments in their classrooms. • Distal influence (e.g., school climate). • communication of a clear school vision and mission • potential for all students to learn • commitment of staff to work together to respond to student needs thoughtfully and immediately • responsiveness of school leadership • options for student affiliation within the school and community setting

27. Parent/community Involvement Factors • Proximal: Parent-Teacher Relations • Knowledge of student performance expectations & learning standards • Participation in monitoring child progress • Child awareness of parent-school communication • Family/parent participation in meetings & school-related decisions (e.g., planning for school improvement) • Distal: School-Community Relations • Community partnerships to support and enhance school climate • Input from parents on the climate of the school • Input on the value of communication that is being provided to parents to know how to support their child’s learning

28. An Example Student Engagement

29. Problem Solving Process Define the Problem What Do We Want Students to KNOW and Be Able to DO? Evaluate Did It WORK? (Response to Intervention –RtI) Problem Analysis Why Can’t They DO It? Implement Plan What Are WE Going To DO About It?

30. Case in Point • A student is completing a small percent of assignments (45%) with an accuracy level of 40% (for completed work). • The teacher thought that this student has difficulty staying on-task (lacked self-instruction) and that is why the academic performance (productivity and accuracy) is below expectations. • Data support the relationship between prompts, on-task attention and work accuracy

31. Problem Identification • Replacement Behavior • Increase on-task time • Current Level of Performance • On-Task: 45% • Accuracy: 40% • Desired Level of Performance • On-Task: 75% • Accuracy: 80% • Peer Performance • On-Task: 77% • Accuracy: 81%

32. Problem Analysis • Hypothesis • The student is not completing work accurately because the student is off-task.

33. New Directions In Integrated Problem Solving • Identification of BOTH the engagement and skill performance (productivity and accuracy) behaviors • Simultaneous collection of student engagement behaviors AND productivity/accuracy • Manipulation of the relationship between the two factors to determine the effect of one on the other.

34. Problem Identification:Replacement Behavior • Use self-instruction and self-monitoring to increase on-task time and work accuracy to approximately 80% of opportunities

35. Problem Analysis • Hypothesis • A strong relationship exists between time on-task, work completion and accuracy • Student lacks the self-instruction and self-monitoring skills to remain on-task independently • Student possesses the academic skills necessary to complete the work, at minimum, within the proficiency range expected for this time of year.

36. Prediction • When the student is on-task, accuracy and completion rates will increase significantly. • When asked, student will not be able to identify any strategies that are used to self-instruct or self-monitor • When teacher prompts are used (in lieu of absent student self-instruction), in varying intensities, on-task rates and accuracy will improve.

37. Data Collection • Use teacher prompts to sustain on-task attention. • Increase number of prompts over time. • Collect data on productivity and accuracy as the number of prompts are increased

38. Relationship Between Attention Prompts and Work Accuracy in a 15 Minute Time Period

39. Next Steps • NOW that we know the relationship between on-task, frequency of prompts to achieve on-task and the outcome of improved productivity and accuracy, we can work on teaching the student the skills (self-instruction/self-monitoring) necessary to sustain on-task attention • Intervention impacts: • Student Factors • Involves • Instructional Factors • School Learning Environment Factors • Family/Community Involvement Factors • Had we done this without establishing that relationship AND the relationship did not exist, then the intervention would have NOT resulted in improved accuracy and productivity

40. How does this impact what we do with PS? • Prevent disengagement via a MTSS for academics and behavior. • Clarify which data sources are most important targeting a school’s SE. What student factors? • Assist schools with identifying full range of factors that impact SE. • Model the integration of academics/behavior/technology in all problem-solving training • Consider implementing a range of interventions at multiple levels and across factors and establishing the relationship between those interventions and student outcomes. • Evaluation will need to assess 1) are interventions impacting student factors/outcomes and 2) are the interventions being implemented with fidelity

41. As Collaborators… • Make certain we are specific about the attitudes, beliefs and skills of students when SE is discussed. • Make certain districts and schools understand the impact of the other 3 factors on student engagement. • Make certain that problem-solving creates a shared responsibility for creating SE. • Make certain that strategies/interventions for impacting SE are evaluated against the data for specific attitudes, beliefs, skills, etc.

42. Issues to Consider • May want to assist districts to first evaluate what readily available data can indicate SE: attendance, course completion, grades, discipline referrals, (E.g., Early Warning Systems) • Avoid promoting districts/schools to measure EVERYTHING they can think of…a trade off on time/resources and impact. Why measure 42 variables if 98% of SE issues can be identified by 6?

43. Thank You • Questions? Don Kincaid, Ed.D.: kincaid@usf.edu Brian Gaunt, Ph.D.: bgaunt@usf.edu