Developing a Schoolwide Framework to Prevent and Manage Learning and Behavior Problems
257
Developing a Schoolwide Framework to Prevent and Manage Learning and Behavior Problems
257eBookSecond Edition (Second Edition)
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
New to This Edition
*Updated step-by-step approach reflecting the ongoing development of Ci3T.
*Chapter on evidence for the effectiveness of tiered models.
*Chapter on low-intensity, teacher-delivered strategies.
*Chapter on sustaining effective implementation and professional development.
*"Lessons Learned" feature--reflections and examples from educators in a range of settings.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781462541782 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Guilford Publications, Inc. |
| Publication date: | 09/30/2019 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 257 |
| File size: | 6 MB |
| Age Range: | 5 - 17 Years |
About the Author
Holly Mariah Menzies, PhD, is Professor in the Charter College of Education at California State University, Los Angeles. She worked as both a general educator and special educator for over 10 years. She has provided staff development in the areas of assessment, language arts, and schoolwide positive behavior support. Her scholarly interests include inclusive education and the role of reform in curricular practices. Dr. Menzies is coauthor (with Kathleen Lynne Lane and associates) of Developing a Schoolwide Framework to Prevent and Manage Learning and Behavior Problems, Second Edition; Supporting Behavior for School Success: A Step-by-Step Guide to Key Strategies; Systematic Screenings of Behavior to Support Instruction: From Preschool to High School; and Managing Challenging Behaviors in Schools: Research-Based Strategies That Work.
Wendy Peia Oakes, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. Dr. Oakes worked as a special educator for 13 years. Her work focuses on practices that improve educational access and outcomes for young children with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders, including the use of comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered (Ci3T) models of prevention. She serves as an associate editor of Behavioral Disorders and Remedial and Special Education, and as coeditor of an annual special issue of Education and Treatment of Children. Dr. Oakes is coauthor (with Kathleen Lynne Lane and associates) of the books Developing a Schoolwide Framework to Prevent and Manage Learning and Behavior Problems, Second Edition; Supporting Behavior for School Success: A Step-by-Step Guide to Key Strategies; and Systematic Screenings of Behavior to Support Instruction: From Preschool to High School.
Jemma Robertson Kalberg, MEd, BCBA, is a Board Certified Behavior Analyst living in Cape Town, South Africa. She formerly conducted research on supporting students who are at risk for and identified with emotional and behavioral disorders, and was involved in designing, implementing, and evaluating schoolwide positive behavior support plans with academic, behavioral, and social components. In the context of schoolwide positive behavioral support, Ms. Kalberg focused her efforts on using schoolwide screeners to identify students who were nonresponsive to the primary prevention model. Ms. Kalberg is coauthor (with Kathleen Lynne Lane and associates) of Developing a Schoolwide Framework to Prevent and Manage Learning and Behavior Problems, Second Edition, and Systematic Screenings of Behavior to Support Instruction: From Preschool to High School.
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Preventing and Managing Learning and Behavior Challenges in Our Schools
A COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED APPROACH
A Formidable Task
Since the first edition of this book was published in 2009, the use of schoolwide tiered systems of support is now widely recognized as an effective and responsive approach to improving students' educational outcomes. There is extensive evidence documenting how a systems approach to addressing students' multiple needs can be successfully implemented (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Districts across the country, including those in states such as Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Florida, to name a few, have worked with researchers to investigate a wide range of issues related to schoolwide systems (Eagle, Dowd-Eagle, Snyder, & Holtzman, 2015; Lane et al., 2017). Researchers and practitioners have partnered to explore issues as diverse as how the levels of student risk shift in schools that use schoolwide systems (Lane, 2017), the role of culturally relevant practices in schoolwide positive behavioral support (Bal, Thorius, & Kozleski, 2012), and the use of data by school teams in sustaining implementation (Andreou, McIntosh, Rash, & Kahn, 2015). In addition, these partnerships have studied stakeholders' views of and participation in tiered models. This work has included not only faculty and staff members' experiences but also those of administrators (Lane, Carter, Jenkins, Magill, & Germer, 2015) and families (Weist, Garbacz, Lane, & Kincaid, 2017).
These and other lines of inquiry by practitioner–researcher partnerships have refined the design and implementation of what are now called tiered models of prevention. While substantial gains have been made as a result of these shared efforts, we believe there are still several challenges. One challenge is that students face many conditions outside of school that can negatively affect their ability to succeed if not provided with additional support while in school. We understand a teacher's primary responsibility is to ensure academic success, but we also know academic success is influenced by social–emotional well-being and meeting behavioral expectations in a range of school settings (Corcoran, Cheung, Kim, & Xie, 2018; Horner & Sugai, 2015; Leerkes, Paradise, O'Brien, Calkins, & Lange, 2008; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [www.samhsa.gov]).
Addressing students' nonacademic needs (e.g., soft skills; Watson, 2015) poses significant challenges for teachers and other school personnel who may not have the training, resources, confidence, and/or time in the instructional day to do so. However, a tiered systems approach provides a structure for supporting school personnel in fostering the development of the whole child. With new understandings of how adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (Hughes et al., 2017; Manyema, Norris, & Richter, 2018; McKelvey, McKelvey, Mesman, Whiteside-Mansell, & Bradley, 2018; Purewal Boparai et al., 2018) and mental health impact students' academic development, we can design tiered systems to support students who need more than academic attention.
Another challenge is helping teachers move from reactive to proactive classroom management and discipline systems. This requires not only a change in method but also a shift in thinking. Using proactive approaches such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS; an instructive approach to teaching expected behavior) and high-engagement teaching strategies while reducing reliance on punishment-based measures takes time and sustained effort to show results (Horner, Ward, et al., 2019). Yet, in the long term, proactive approaches deliver exponential benefits as positive, productive relationships are built between adults and students (Bernstein-Yamashiro & Noam, 2013).
Teachers have many demands on their time and often work under difficult conditions. As such, district and site leadership are crucial in providing the time, professional development, and clear commitment to implementing tiered models with proactive methods if teachers are to embrace new practices successfully (George, Cox, Minch, & Sandomierski, 2018).
In this book, we explain how to design, implement, and assess a comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered (Ci3T) model of prevention. The Ci3T model offers a system to address academic, behavioral, and social–emotional domains for a comprehensive approach to student support and school improvement (Lane, Oakes, & Menzies, 2014).
SUPPORTING STUDENTS' MULTIPLE NEEDS
From the late 1970s through the early 2000s, the research community looked carefully at the relation between academic performance and student behavior (Hinshaw, 1982). Some studies documented how student behavior improved when academic performance was strengthened, while others demonstrated it is possible to improve academic outcomes by first improving behavior (DiGangi, Maag, & Rutherford, 1991; Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004; Stewart, Martella, Marchand-Martella, & Benner, 2005). Some researchers argued it is necessary to intervene in both areas, while others noted how variables such as hyperactivity and inattention negatively affect student performance (Hinshaw, 1982). Now there is a consensus that regardless of the directionality of the relation between academic and behavioral performance patterns, the most important issue is meeting students' multiple needs — including social–emotional skills sets, which have long been overlooked. In fact, Michael Yudin (2014), former U.S. Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, emphasized how educators must be committed to addressing students' behavioral and social–emotional needs if they hope to improve educational outcomes for underperforming students. He emphasized it is often students with the greatest challenges in these areas who miss the most instruction. We have wholeheartedly embraced these priorities since the late 1990s, consistently noting the importance of meeting students' multiple needs: academic, behavioral, and social–emotional (Lane, 1999; Lane & Menzies, 2002; Nelson et al., 2004).
A Look at Academic Performance
As we look at students' academic performance, few would disagree that reading is a critical skill that holds the key to unlocking other learning (Foorman, Francis, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1997; D. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012; Lyon, 1996). Yet many students continue to struggle with reading skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018) indicated the national percentage of students at or above the proficient level was only 35% for both fourth and eighth graders. It is not just students attending general education that are struggling. This same report suggested that very little progress has been made to improve the reading skills of students with disabilities who receive services as part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004). A recent Supreme Court case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2015), ruled that school districts have a responsibility to offer services to students with disabilities that ensure adequate academic progress. This is in contrast to an earlier court case, Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), which set a lower standard — a minimum floor of opportunity. Rowley required districts to provide adequate resources so that students could access education, not necessarily make meaningful educational gains. Clearly, the latest ruling will have significant consequences for districts as they decide whether their current services for students with disabilities are robust enough to meet the new standard.
Academic achievement in the United States in other core content areas is also lower than desired. For example, according to the NAEP report (NCES, 2015, 2018), average proficiency in math and science is not higher than 40% in fourth, eighth, or 12th grades (and as low as 22% average proficiency in 12th- grade science). Statistics on performance in writing are even more dismal with average proficiency in fourth, eighth, or 12th grades at about 28% (NCES, 2015). These scores are reflected in U.S. performance on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is administered every 3 years (NCES, 2015). There has been no improvement over the past two decades in math, reading, or science, and the United States ranks lower than many other economically developed countries.
Collectively, despite our very best efforts, there is work to be done to improve students' academic performance in the core content areas. To achieve this goal, we must acknowledge how students' behavioral strengths and challenges, as well as their social–emotional well-being, impact their instructional experience.
A Look at Behavioral Performance
If we were to take a picture of schools in the United States, we would see that approximately 12% of school-age youth have moderate-to-severe emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD), which includes externalizing (e.g., acting out, noncompliance) and/or internalizing (e.g., shy, anxious, socially withdrawn) behaviors (Forness, Freeman, Paparella, Kauffman, & Walker, 2012). If we include all students experiencing mild-to-severe EBD, the percentage increases to 20%. For many, these point-prevalence statistics are surprising. In the past, educators often believed students with behavior challenges did not belong in the general education community, but this is far from true. With a priority placed on inclusive programming, and the fact that less than 1% of students are served in special education in the category of emotional disturbance means most students with or at risk for EBD will be educated in the general education setting. Therefore, administrators and teachers must be prepared to meet the multiple needs of students with and at risk for EBD, whether or not they are identified for special education services.
As teachers know, students with EBD experience a host of challenges. While most often noticed for behavioral deficits and excesses, students with EBD also have academic difficulties (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics; Greenbaum et al., 1996; Landrum, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003; Lane, Barton-Arwood, Rogers, & Robertson, 2007; Mattison, Hooper, & Glassberg, 2002; Reid, Gonzalez, Nordness, Trout, & Epstein, 2004; Wagner & Davis, 2006). Landrum and colleagues (2003, p. 148) noted students with EBD "experience less school success than any other subgroup of students with or without disabilities." Even when students receive special education services for emotional disturbance (ED), their academic skills sets tend to remain stable over time: They typically do not improve (Lane, 2004; Mattison et al., 2002) and may even deteriorate (Nelson et al., 2004).
In the absence of effective interventions, life is challenging for these students. Furthermore, the wide range of terms used by various professionals who address their needs, for example, the mental health, research, and educational communities, often complicate the challenges (Kauffman, 2004, 2005). Consider antisocial behavior, which is a general term referring to the opposite of prosocial behavior; it describes a range of behaviors that each professional community refers to using different terminology. Generally, instead of positive, cooperative, and helpful, a student with antisocial behavior is one who is negative, hostile, and aggressive in his or her interactions across a range of settings (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). The term antisocial behavior refers to persistent violations of normative rules and expected behaviors (Simcha-Fagan, Langner, Gersten, & Eisenberg, 1975). Students with antisocial behavior patterns pose challenges to teachers, parents, and peers.
In turn, the psychiatric community uses terms such as oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and antisocial personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Antisocial behavior is a broader term than antisocial personality disorder, as specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision [DSM-IV-TR]; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The term antisocial personality disorder is used by the mental health community to refer to adults with extreme patterns of highly aggressive, delinquent behaviors (Lane, Kalberg, Parks, & Carter, 2008). The research community uses terms such as internalizing (overcontrolled: anxious, somatic complaints, and depression) and externalizing (undercontrolled: delinquency [law-breaking behaviors] and aggression; Achenbach, 1991). Finally, the educational community uses the terms emotional disturbance (ED) and social maladjustment. This wide range of terminology makes it difficult to identify and support students and conduct research, and inhibits effective communication between educators and mental health professionals (Lane, 2004; Lane, Gresham, & O'Shaughnessy, 2002).
One way of ameliorating these challenges is to ensure educators have an understanding of the social–emotional needs of learners. Moving forward, we use the more global term EBD to refer to the behavioral patterns of students who experience these challenges in our educational systems.
A Look at Social–Emotional Performance
In addition to the behavioral challenges facing many students, there are broader concerns in terms of social competencies. Students with and at risk for EBD struggle interpersonally with peers and adults (e.g., Walker, Irvin, Noell, & Singer, 1992). They demonstrate high levels of aggression toward people, property, and even themselves (e.g., high-risk behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse; Walker et al., 2004). Socially, these students struggle to interpret social situations accurately, often misinterpreting neutral social interactions as hostile (e.g., being bumped by another student while standing in the lunch line; Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002). During playground time, elementary school-age students with EBD demonstrate more than twice the amount of negative-aggressive behavior than do typical students (Walker, Hops, & Greenwood, 1993) even though prosocial behavior interactions tend to be comparable.
Students are unlikely to "outgrow" these social challenges without intervention. Data from the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study–2 (SEELS-2) and National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS-2) indicate students with EBD continue to struggle well after they leave PreK–12 settings. For example, adults with EBD are often unemployed or underemployed, battle substance abuse, struggle interpersonally (e.g., high rates of divorce), and frequently require mental health services (e.g., Newman et al., 2011; Wagner & Davis, 2006). As a society, we simply cannot afford to ignore the academic, behavioral, and social needs of students with EBD (Lane, Royer, & Oakes, in press). Their challenges make their own lives difficult, and the impact of their behavioral manifestations make life challenging for their families, educational systems, peers, and society as a whole (Kauffman, 2004). In the most extreme cases, the impact on society is seen by shocking and tragic instances of violence in our nation's schools that have untold costs emotionally, socially, and financially (Kauffman, 2005; Lane, 2017). Although many general educators did not imagine they would have to address issues such as violence and antisocial behavior, these facts of life must be addressed by our school systems (Walker et al., 2004).
This is particularly true given the number of students who have experienced trauma. There is extensive evidence showing trauma has a severe negative impact on children, and affects not only their academic performance in school but also is correlated with negative outcomes later in life (Leerkes et al., 2008; McKelvey et al., 2018; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [www.samhsa.gov]). These traumas, called adverse childhood events (ACEs), are events such as child abuse and neglect or living in families experiencing domestic violence, incarceration, mental illness, and/or substance abuse. ACEs also include family separations such as divorce. Schools have become more aware of how these events affect a child's academic performance and mental health. When schools have systems in place to address these issues, they can reduce the effects of trauma.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Developing a Schoolwide Framework to Prevent and Manage Learning and Behavior Problems"
by .
Copyright © 2020 The Guilford Press.
Excerpted by permission of The Guilford Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
I. An Introduction to Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Models of Prevention1. Preventing and Managing Learning and Behavior Challenges in Our Schools: A Comprehensive, Integrated Approach
2. A Look at Evidence Surrounding Tiered Systems
II. Overview of the Ci3T Implementation Manual
3. Designing and Implementing a Ci3T Model: Building a Primary Prevention Plan
4. Examining Tier 1 Efforts: Monitoring Treatment Integrity and Social Validity
III. A Focus on Data-Informed Decision Making
5. Determining How Well Ci3T is Meeting the Goals: Procedures for Monitoring Overall Student Performance
6. Empowering Teachers with Low-Intensity, Teacher-Delivered Strategies
7. Supporting Students Who Require More than Primary Prevention Efforts: Tier 2 and Tier 3
IV. Moving Forward: Considerations for Successful Implementation
8. Understanding Implementation Science: Responsible Implementation of System Change Efforts
Interviews
K–12 special and general educators, school psychologists, school and district administrators, and behavior specialists. May serve as a supplemental text in graduate-level courses.