Establishing Positive Discipline Policies in an Urban Elementary School
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
47 Establishing Positive Discipline Policies in an Urban Elementary School Laura L. Feuerborn, PhD, NCSP, University of Washington, Tacoma Ashli D. Tyre, Ed.D., NCSP, Seattle University Researchers and school practitioners alike are finding positive outcomes in the proactive practices of schoolwide positive behavior supports (SWPBS). However, reform through such systemic efforts as SWPBS is a challenging endeavor. For SWPBS to reach the widest number of schools, it is necessary to provide school faculty and staff with the knowledge and tools necessary to design and implement effective behavioral supports. Foundations is a staff development tool designed to guide school teams through the process of developing positive disciplinary practices consistent to the principles of SWPBS that prevent problem behavior and encourage safety and civility. This paper includes a description of SWPBS and Foundations followed by outcomes from a diverse, urban elementary school. Following one year of implementation, data indicated positive changes in schoolwide behavior and discipline practices. KEYWORDS: schoolwide positive behavior supports, discipline reform, positive behavior interventions and supports Successful resolution to changing student needs requires the restructuring of school practices in a manner that consistently and proactively supports positive behavior for all students and in all settings. Schoolwide positive behavior support (SWPBS) is a promising approach for addressing these needs (Netzel & Eber, 2003; Skiba & Peterson, 2000; Turnbull et al., 2002). In implementing SWPBS, school teams restructure their discipline systems to provide universal, targeted, and intensive supports to encourage positive social, emotional, and behavioral growth in all students. Universal supports promote an encouraging school climate whereby all students are actively taught social-behavioral expectations and reinforced for appropriate behavior, supplemental supports are provided at the targeted level for those who are unresponsive to universal supports, and intensive supports are implemented for individual students with chronic levels of challenging behavior. At all levels of prevention and support, local data are utilized to determine student needs and response to interventions (McKevitt & Braaksma, 2008; Sugai & Horner, 2006; Sugai, Horner, & McIntosh, 2008; Walker et al., 1996). Key elements of the SWPBS approach include (a) active teaching and reinforcement of a small number of clearly defined social-behavioral expectations; (b) implementation of consistent consequences for violations of school expectations; and (c) use of school data to drive intervention planning and monitor outcomes (Horner et al., 2004; McKevitt & Braaksma, 2008; Sugai & Horner, 2006). These key features are implemented across the settings that exist in school communities including common areas, instructional settings, and for individual students in need of intensive support (Safran & Oswald, 2003; Turnbull et al., 2002; Walker et al., 1996). Many meaningful outcomes are associated with SWPBS, including reduced rates of office disciplinary referrals, detentions, and suspensions (e.g. Bohanon et al., 2006; Bradshaw, Reinke, Brown, Bevans, & Leaf, 2008; Scott & Barrett, 2004) and increased instructional time (e.g. Lassen, Steele, & Sailor, 2006; Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005). Overall, there is a substantial and growing body of evidence supporting positive outcomes following the implementation of SWPBS in primary and secondary schools (e.g. Safran & Oswald, 2003; Muscott, Mann, & LeBrun, 2008). Correspondence may be sent to Laura Feuerborn, PhD, NCSP, University of Washington, Tacoma, 1900 Commerce Street, Tacoma, WA 98402, (253) 692-4793 or email: [email protected] 48 Contemporary School Psychology, 2012, Vol. 16 Yet, creating effective and sustainable change on a systemic level is a difficult and complex undertaking (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Muscott, Mann, & LeBrun, 2008; Tyre, Feuerborn, & Lilly, 2010). This is particularly true for urban schools, as challenges associated with high poverty rates and limited resources often complicate systemic reform efforts. Urban schools often struggle with higher levels of violence, mobility, truancy, under-qualified staff, and staff turnover. Furthermore, staff members are provided limited opportunities for professional development. Thus, school staff in urban communities often struggle to meet the diverse social, emotional, and behavioral needs of their students (Netzel & Eber, 2003). Urban schools may require more intensive levels of supports for students and more comprehensive training and resources for staff than non-urban schools (Warren, Edmonson, Griggs, P., Lassen, McCart, Turnbull, & Sailor, 2003). Fundamentally, the successful adoption of any systems-level initiative, including SWPBS, requires the support and active participation of stakeholders within the school system to restructure current schoolwide practices. A key component to achieving this support and active participation is to ensure school practitioners have the knowledge and skills necessary for the full implementation of the schoolwide innovation (Ervin & Schaughency, 2008). Safe & Civil Schools Foundations, a staff development program grounded in behavioral principles consistent with SWPBS, may offer a means to provide the necessary knowledge and skills for the implementation of effective behavior supports. Despite the widespread use of Foundations, the program’s utility has yet to be empirically evaluated. In that Foundations comprises the critical features of SWPBS, it is promising that evidence validating the effectiveness of SWPBS may be generalized to support the utility of Foundations; however, there is no research available to support this supposition. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore student discipline outcomes and levels of SWPBS implementation following one year of implementation of Foundations in an urban elementary school. Student discipline data including violations of schoolwide rules, detentions, and suspensions were collected and reviewed prior to implementation and at the end of the first year of implementation. Level of SWPBS implementation was examined at the end of the first year of implementation. It must be noted that the authors conducted this project independently. There is no relationship or financial interest between the authors and the participating school and the Safe & Civil Schools’ company and affiliated programs. SAFE & CIVIL SCHOOLS FOUNDATIONS Safe & Civil Schools Foundations (Sprick, Garrison, & Howard, 2002) is a staff development tool that utilizes a series of multimedia presentations to guide school teams through the process of planning for and implementing positive disciplinary practices. Key features of the Foundations program consistent with SWPBS include: clear definition, explicit teaching, and reinforcement of desired behaviors; clear definition and consistent consequences for undesired behaviors; and the use of data to drive intervention planning and monitoring of progress across all educational settings. Reflection, Data, Structure, and Collaboration Foundations incorporates a staff development model which encourages reflection, data utilization, structure, and collaboration. When faced with a challenging behavioral situation, school staff members are encouraged to use self-reflection to determine how to help the student experience more success in the future. In this manner, staff view challenging behaviors as learning opportunities for both students and staff. Also, school teams collect and evaluate data collected from behavior incident forms or office discipline referrals, school surveys, and common area observations to guide the decision-making process. For example, “Structuring for Success” calls for staff to scrutinize the organization of physical environments via structural blueprints or maps of the school and observation data. Common areas, such as recess grounds and hallways frequently contain areas that are visually obscured and less supervised, and it is in these areas that bullying and harassment are likely to occur. Upon review of such building structures, staff members may consider increasing supervision or remodeling areas such as hidden locker Establishing Positive Discipline Policies in an Urban Elementary School 49 bays. Lastly, the developers stress the importance of collaboration. In that all school staff are viewed as stakeholders in the program, responsibility for student success is shared by all (Sprick et al., 2002). Levels of Implementation Foundations encompasses three tiers of implementation: schoolwide, classroom, and individual. The schoolwide level is the universal level which includes supports for all students in all settings. At the classroom level, supports for positive behavior are embedded into all instructional settings. For students who necessitate more intensive support, individualized supports are provided. The Foundations program emphasizes data-based decision making at each level. If, for example, schoolwide data indicate problem behavior occurs in a variety of settings and with a large number of students, intervention at the schoolwide level is necessary. However, if instructional settings are the foremost settings in which behavior problems transpire, then teams are advised to implement improved classroom supports (Sprick et al., 2002). The Cycle of Improvement Foundations offers a problem-solving model built around