Integrating Cultural Responsiveness and School-wide Positive Behavior Support

1. Integrating Cultural Responsiveness and School-wide Positive Behavior Support Tary J. Tobin (ttobin@uoregon.edu) Claudia G. Vincent (clavin@uoregon.edu) University of Oregon

2. Advance Organizer • Part I • Behavioral outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students • Proposal for expanding the conceptual framework of SWPBS to include cultural responsiveness • Part II • Strategies for reducing disproportionate behavioral outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse students • Recommendations for future research

3. Behavioral outcomes for CLD students—the discipline gap Compared to White students • African-American students are • disciplined at a disproportionate rate • 2.19 times more likely to receive ODR at elem level, 3.79 times more likely at middle school level (Skiba et al., 2005) • more severely • 3.75 times more likely to be suspended/expelled for minor misbehavior (Skiba et al., in review) • suspended and expelled more often • 26.28% AA male vs. 11.95% W male, 13.64% AA female vs. 4.53% W female (Raffaele Mendez & Knoff, 2003) • excluded for longer durations • 55.37% AA vs 31.47% W students excluded >10 days (Vincent & Tobin, in review) • referred to special education at a disproportionate rate • 3 times more likely to be identified with mild mental retardation (Skiba et al., 2005)

4. 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 • Latina students report statistically higher levels of depression and anxiety (McLaughlin et al., 2007) • Female students with depression are statistically more likely to drop out of school (Fletcher, 2008) • Dropping out of school at a higher rate • 21.4% Latino, 5.3% White students (U.S. Department of Education, 2009)

5. Behavioral outcomes are linked to academic outcomes Discipline Gap Achievement Gap

6. No simple solution….. • Insufficient student support? • Ineffective school systems? • Inadequate decision-making? • All of the above? • None of the above?

7. …..for a very complex issue • 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…)

8. Under the school’s control: SWPBS 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.

9. Not under the school’s control (…or is it?): Cultural and linguistic diversity 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

10. SWPBS and behavioral outcomes for CLD students • What does the discipline gap look like in schools implementing SWPBS compared to schools not implementing SWPBS?

11. 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

12. SWPBS and the discipline gap

13. 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

14. How to narrow the discipline gap through SWPBS?

15. 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

16. 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 student’s cultural identity as a strength

17. Culturally responsive decision-making • Establish cultural validity of data • Carefully review operational definitions of behavioral violations • Review ODR data by student race • Disaggregate data by student race • For example, ethnicity report of the School Wide Information System (www.swis.org)

18. 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

19. Culturally responsive SWPBS

20. Part II • SWPBS strategies for reducing disproportionate disciplinary exclusions of African American students • Recommendations for future research

21. 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 (Sugai et al., in press) • Not enough known – or being done – about racially disproportionate disciplinary exclusions

22. Studied 46 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

23. 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.

24. 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) .

25. 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

26. Scale for “In Place” Status • 0 = Not in place • 1 = Partially in place • 2 = In place

27. “Diverse” Schools • We used data only from schools with some diversity, operationally defined as at least • > .05% and < .95% • African American Students

28. Location of the Schools: • Colorado: 1 (2.2%) • Illinois: 12 (26.1%) • Maryland: 30 (65.2%) • Michigan: 3 (6.5%)

29. Number of Students • The total number of students enrolled was 32,694. • White students = 19,688 • African American students = 9,248. • Other = 3,758

30. 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

31. 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

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

33. 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.

34. 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 →

36. 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 case) to be suspended as Whites. • Useful for comparing from one year to the next or from one school to another.

37. Actual Results for Relative Rate Index (RRI) for our 46 schools: • Average = 3.11 (SD = 2.21) • On average, African Americans were 3 times as likely to be excluded from school for disciplinary reasons as White students were. • Some schools improved (decreased their RRI) over time – we wondered IF THEY ALSO IMPROVED any specific SWPBS strategies.

38. 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

39. Top strategy:Expected student behaviors in the classroom are acknowledged regularly (positively reinforced) (>4 positives to 1 negative).Beta= -.812 (p =0.003)

40. Why might positive attention be particularly helpful for CLD youth?

41. 4 Positives for every 1 Negative? • Positive teacher-student interactions in the classroom are an essential aspect of cultural responsiveness (Cartledge et al., 2001; Cartledge et al., 2008; Hershfeldt et al., 2009).

42. Also important: Transitions between instructional & non-instructional activities in the classroom are efficient & orderly.Beta= -.606 (p =0.014)

43. Why might transitions be especially important?

44. How can you improve transitions? • “If you seat students in small groups or teams in your classroom, you can speed up transitions between activities by awarding points to the group that 1) does the best job of cleaning up, 2) makes the quietest transition, 3) makes the quickest transition… At the end of the week, tally each group’s points. Provide rewards for members of the winning group. (Oriental Trading Company is a good source of inexpensive “trinket” awards that kids seem to love, but homework passes and free computer time coupons are popular too.)” • Written by Linda Starr, retrieved from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/management_tips/management_tips049.shtml

45. Next: Closer up look at 8 schools that improved their overall total EBS Survey scores (all items combined) and reduced high African American-to-White Relative Rate Indexes

46. 1st year: RRI ranged from 2.16 to 10.89 • 2nd year: RRI ranged from 0.16 to 2.89

47. For each school, rank ordered all the items on the EBS Survey by how much the school’s rating improved. • Looked closely at the10 most improved items for each of these schools.

48. Found that schools’ “most improved” items varied considerably from one school to another. • Despite this variability, the following three items were listed most often as “most improved” items:

49. Patterns of student problem behaviors are reported to teams and faculty for active decision-making on a regular basis (e.g., monthly).

50. Why would monitoring data in team meetings be important?