PAMELA FENNINGLOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

What Research Shows to be Best Practices in Addressing

School Discipline

Overreliance on Suspension

SUSPENSION FINDINGS

Associated with more rather than less future behavior problems (Mayer, 1995)

Does not teach alternative behaviors to prevent future problems (Fenning et al., 2012)

Alienates students and contributes to school climate issues, leading to more schoolwide discipline problems (Vavrus & Cole, 2002)

Collateral Suspension Damage

Associated with entry to the juvenile justice system, termed “School to Prison Pipeline” (Losen & Martinez, 2013)

Advent of “Zero Tolerance” has contributed to “criminalization” of behaviors (Skiba & Rausch, 2006)

Disproportionality of Harsh Discipline

Long-standing research (Children’s Defense Fund, 1975) to current date (Losen & Martinez, 2013) demonstrates 4:1 to 5:1 ratios of students of color being excluded because of discipline

Most Impacted: African-American males, Students with academic problems Students in special education

Administrative Costs and School Revenue

http://community-matters.org/programs-and-services/calculator

From: Community Matters. Suspension Loss and Cost Calculator

What Alternatives are There?

Suggestions to schools about avoiding suspension need to be coupled with viable alternatives that can be implemented

Framework of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)

What are we doing for all students in the building? What are we doing for some students in the building? What are doing for a few students with the most

intensive needs?

ACADEMIC SYSTEMS BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS

Tier 1 Core Instructional Interventions• All students• Preventive, proactive

STUDENTS

MTSS and School Discipline

80% 80%Tier 1 Core Universal Interventions• All settings, All students• Preventive, proactive

Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions• Some students (at-risk)• High efficiency• Rapid response

Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions• Some students (at-risk)• High efficiency• Rapid response

15%15%

Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions• Individual Students• Assessment - based• High intensity• Of longer duration

Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions• Individual Students• Assessment - based• Intense, durable procedures

5%5%

Batsche, G. M., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of

State Directors of Special Education, Inc.

MTSS and School Discipline

Overview of Research-Based School Discipline Approaches*

EVIDENCE BASED ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINE (aka suspension and expulsion)

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) (Horner et al., 2009)

Restorative Justice Practices (Karp & Breslin, 2001)

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, (2011) * Summarized from Fenning, P., & Sears, K. (in press). Schoolwide discipline policies. In G. Scarlett (Ed) Sage Encylopedia of Classroom Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS)

Schoolwide Discipline Policies Research *

Secondary SWPBS (some students)•Focus on groups of students or locations in

building where expectations need to be retaught

•Efficient and rapid delivery of intervention

•Example, Behavior Education Program (Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007)

•Should be tied to “function” of behavior (McIntosh, Campbell, Carter, & Dickey, 2009)

•www.pbis.org

Schoolwide Discipline Policies Research

Tertiary SWPBS (a few students)• Focus on individualized supports for a

small percentage of population with most intensive needs

• Individualized functional analysis of behavior

• Wraparound planning and supports (Scott and Eber, 2003)

• www.pbis.org

Restorative Justice

Origins in Criminal Justice SystemFocus on Repairing Damage/Harm and

Restoring RelationshipsDoesn’t Condone Behavior But Focus on

RestitutionEmerging Evaluations are Promising/More

Outcome Evidence NeededPrison Fellowship International Center for

Justice and Reconciliation web site at: www.restorative justice.org/other/schools/outcome-evaluation.

Restorative Justice

US Studies (Karp & Breslin, 2001)• Reductions in school suspensions at middle school

level• Legislative support in Minnesota

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/StuSuc/SafeSch/RestorMeas/

International Implementation Work (Morrison, 2002) http://www.restorativejustice.org/webtour/restpractices• Staff reported improved student behavior• Higher levels of student reports that discipline

responses were fair

Today’s Practice Example: Building Bridges

Building Bridges (Rappaport, 2014)Alternative to Suspension ProgramImplemented Thus Far as Individualized

Support (tier 3)Building Bridges is based on “restorative

justice” and “cognitive behavior” principlesStudents are provided with an “alternative”

to traditional out of school suspension

Building Bridges Example

Building Bridges has been implemented for two years (2012-2014) and evaluated for one year (based on 2012-2013 data) in a therapeutic day school for high school students with serious emotional and behavioral disorders

More data is needed and forthcoming

Building Bridges (Rappaport, 2014)

When referred to Building Bridges option of program is explained to student by social worker/implementation agent, principal/assistant principal or teacher

Students learn to take responsibility for their behavior and choices

They work on “making things right” with those they have emotionally or physically hurt

Building Bridges Process

Students are taught skills and strategies they can use to make better decisions in the future

Students begin their day in Building Bridges, which is implemented in a space outside of the classroom (e.g., social workers office, could be dean’s office)

Students are given a “thinking sheet”, which involves them processing the incident. They describe what happened, how others felt and were effected, how they felt and what would make things better in the future

Thinking Sheets (Rappaport, 2014)

Students use the thinking sheets to process the incident that occurred and to consider more positive choices to make in the future

Modifications to thinking sheets include a multiple choice format if necessary

Students are allowed to dictate to the Bridges facilitator if writing is an inhibiting issue

Following are examples of thinking sheets

CopyrightBridges (2014)

Rappaport

CopyrightBridges (2014)

Rappaport

Building Bridges Process

Staff who were involved in the incident also describe their perspective on the situation through a “staff perspective thinking sheet”

Students also might complete “empathy worksheets” to further help them process the impact they may be making on others around them

CopyrightBridges (2014)

Rappaport

CopyrightBridges (2014)

Rappaport

Building Bridges Process

After students complete the relevant “thinking sheets” and process with a staff, then the student will be asked to “mediate” if warranted

Mediation

Students are given some control in what time during Building Bridges the mediation will occur

Also during their time in Building Bridges, students may complete scenarios and worksheets that are specific to their situation

After all of the worksheets have been completed and reviewed, the student can use the remaining time to do school work so they do not fall behind in classes

Examples of Scenarios

Example of Scenarios

Who is capable of running Building Bridges?

Bridges facilitator should have some counseling experience. These skills can also be taught. School personnel could be:

School social workers School psychologists School counselors Some teachers, such as special educators Discipline deans

Is Building Bridges Effective?

Research team at Loyola University Chicago conducting longitudinal evaluation

School collects office discipline referrals data through SWIS

Research team analyzed the SWIS data for the 2012-2013 academic year

Is Building Bridges Effective?

What is the effect of the program on students’ major referrals? Fighting Physical aggression Drug offenses Weapons

Is Building Bridges Effective?

Does participation in Bridges after the 1st major referral significantly reduce the likelihood of a 2nd major referral?

31 students had at least one major referral 16 participated in Bridges after 1st referral 15 did not participate in Bridges after 1st referral

Is Building Bridges Effective?

Does Bridges increase the amount of time between the 1st and 2nd major referral?

21 students had two major referrals 9 of these students participated in Bridges after 1st

referral 12 of these students did not participate after 1st referral

Time Period Between 1st and 2nd Referral

Results of a Mann-Whitney U test revealed that students who participated in the program after their first major referral took significantly more school days to generate a second major referral, U = 14.50, z = -2.81, p < .01, r = -.61.

Is Building Bridges Effective?

Does participation in Bridges after the 1st and 2nd major referrals significantly reduce the likelihood of a 3rd major referral?

Participation in two Bridges sessions (after two major referrals) significantly decreases the likelihood of a 3rd offense compared to participation in one or zero sessions

Impact of 2 Building Bridges Sessions

Fisher’s exact test demonstrated that, for students with two major offenses, there was a significant association between the number of Bridges sessions and whether or not students had a 3rd major offense (p < .05).

Preliminary Conclusions

After the first major referral, implementation of Building Bridges did not reduce the likelihood of a second referral, but it did significantly increase the amount of time it took for students to reoffend.

For students with multiple referrals, implementing Building Bridges consistently after referrals seems to reduce the likelihood of subsequent referrals

For More Information

Youtube videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2NoJdEBwPw

Michelle Rappaport, LCSWBridges Developer and Facilitator

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)

Integration of Social and Emotional Learning

Skills Directly Taught in the Classroom

Prosocial Behavior Improves Academic Functioning

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) Has Identified Five SEL Areas Self Awareness Self Management social awareness relationship skills responsible decision-

making.

Social Emotional Learning Resources

CASEL Guide Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs (Preschool and Elementary Edition)

http://static.squarespace.com/static/513f79f9e4b05ce7b70e9673/t/526a220de4b00a92c90436ba/1382687245993/2013-casel-guide.pdf

SEL Outcomes

Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, (2011) Meta-analysis of over 200 schoolwide program identified as SEL (using comparison group)

Findings were: Improved academic functioning More proactive behavior Reduced conduct problems at post-test Significant effects remaining (though not as strong) at

six months for the programs that collected data

References

Children’s Defense Fund. (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children? Cambridge: MA: Washington Research Project.

Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, K.B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2010.01564x.

Fenning, P., & Sears, K. (in press). Schoolwide discipline policies. In G. Scarlett (Ed) Sage Encylopedia of Classroom Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fenning, P., Pulaski, S., Gomez, M., Morello, M., Maciel, L., Maroney,E., Schmidt, A., Dahlvig, K., McArdle., L, Morello, T., Wilson, R.,

Horwitz, A. & Maltese, R., (2012). Call to Action: A Critical Need for Designing Alternatives to Suspensionand Expulsion, Journal of School Violence, 11:2, 105-117

Hawken, L., MacLeod, K. & Rawlings, L. (2007). Effects of the Behavior Education Program (BEP) on problem behavior with elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 94-101.

Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools.

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133-145.

Karp, D.P. & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth and Society, 33(2), 249-272.

References

Losen, D.J., & Martinez, T.E. (2013). Out of school and off track: the Overuse of suspensions in American middle and high schools. Retrieved from the Center for Civil Remedies Web site at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school- to-prison-folder/federal-reports/out-of-school-and-off-track-the-overuse-of- suspensions-in-american-middle-and- high-schools/Exec_Sum_OutofSchool_OffTrack_UCLA.pdf

Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478.

McIntosh, K., Campbell, A., Carter, D., & Dickey, C. (2009). Differential effects of a tier 2 behavioral intervention based on function of problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 82-93.

Morrison, B. (2002). Bullying and victimization in schools: A Restorative justice approach. Australian Institute of Criminology Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice (No. 219), 1-6. Retrieved from the Australian Institute of Criminology web site at: http://www.aic.gov.au/

Rappaport, M. (2014). Building bridges: An alternative to suspension. Bridges, LLC: Vernon Hills, IL. ISBN: 978-0- 9913798-0-4

Scott, T., & Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school processes: Primary, secondary, and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports, 5, 131–143.

References

Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion:Questions of equity and effectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporaryissues (pp. 1063–1092). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vavrus. F. & Cole. K. (2002). "I didn't do nothing"": The discursive construction ofsuspension. The Urban Review, 34, 87-111.