Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Meeting AYP: How PBS Supports Academic
Growth for Schools
Chris Borgmeier, Ph.D. & Amanda Sanford, Ph.D. [email protected] [email protected]
Portland State Universitywww.web.pdx.edu/~cborgmei/
2 http://www.alsig.org/images/trianglechart_
3
How PBS impacts AYP & Academic Achievement
4
Research has consistently shown that the amount of instructional time is highly correlated with student achievement
(Brophy, 1988; Fisher, Berliner, Filby, Marliave, Cahen, Dishaw, 1980)
If acceptable instruction is in place, then improving the behavioral climate of the school will allow that instruction to be more effective.
5
Academic Learning Time: Typical School
1170 School Year (6.5 hours x 180 days) - 65 Absenteeism (1 day/month x 10 months)= 1105 Attendance Time (Time in School)- 270 Non-instructional time (1.5 hrs./day for recess, lunch, etc)
= 835 Allocated Time (Time scheduled for teaching)
- 209 (25% of allocated time for administration, transition, discipline-15 minutes/hour)
= 626 Instructional time (time actually teaching)- 157 Time off task (Engaged 75% of time)= 469 Engaged Time (On task)- 94 Unsuccessful Engaged Time (Success Rate 80%)= 375 Academic Learning Time
Education Resources Inc., 2005Efficiency Rating = 32%
6
Academic Learning Time: Effective School
1170 School Year (6.5 hours x 180 days) - 65 Absenteeism (1 day/month x 10 months)= 1105 Attendance Time (Time in School)- 270 Non-instructional time (1.5 hrs./day for recess, lunch, etc)
= 835 Allocated Time (Time scheduled for teaching)
- 125 (15% of allocated time for administration, transition, discipline-9 minutes/hour)
= 710 Instructional time (actually teaching-710 vs. 626)- 71 Time off task (Engaged 90% of time)= 639 Engaged Time (639 vs. 469 On task)- 64 Unsuccessful Engaged Time (Success Rate 90%)= 575 Academic Learning Time
Education Resources Inc., 2005Efficiency Rating = 49%
7
The Difference: Typical vs. Effective Schools Unallocated Non-Instructional Time
75% vs. 85% = 84 more hours Difference in 15 minutes vs. 9 minutes/hour Teaching expectations, teaching transitions, managing appropriate and
inappropriate behavior efficiently
Engagement Rate 75% vs. 90% = 86 more hours
Management of groups, pacing
Success Rate 80% vs. 90% = 30 more hours
Appropriate placement, effective teaching
So what? 200 hours more academic learning time (575 vs. 375) 53% more ALT 95 more days in school (4-5 more months of school!)
Education Resources Inc., 2005
8
Clip from Colvin Video to demonstrate
9
Cost Benefit Analysis Reactive Discipline v. PBS
Oregon Middle School Example5100 referrals =76,500 min. @ 15 min./referral
= 1275 hrs.= 159 days @ 8 hrs/dayalmost an entire school year
Principal was at work 16 hr./day and it didn’t help
Implemented PBS and referrals were reduced by over half in first year
10
Administrative Benefit – SW PBSSpringfield MS, MD
2001-2002 2277 Discipline referrals
2002-2003 -1322 referrals
= 955 42% improvement
= 14,325 min. @15 min./referral
= 238.75 hrs
= 40 days Admin. Time gained
11
Instructional Benefit – SW PBSSpringfield MS, MD
Pre-PBS 2277 Discipline referrals
Post PBS -1322 referrals
= 955 42% improvement
= 42,975 min. @ 45 min.
= 716.25 hrs
= 119 days Instructional time gained
12
13
Research on implementation of SW PBS & Academic outcomes
14
Class-wide behavior support increased the time students receive academic instruction. Putnam, Handler and O’Leary-Zonarich (2003) Putnam, Handler, Rey and O’Leary-
Zonarich (2002)
15
Inner City Middle School
Findings after 3 years of implementing SW-PBS:reductions in ODRs and suspensions increases in mathematics test scores from
baseline to year three. reading scores did not increase from baseline
to year 1, but positive changes were documented from year one to year three.
(Larsen, Steele, and Sailor, 2006)
16
Improved Scores on Standardized tests following SW-PBS Urban Elementary School increased reading and
math scores on standardized tests(Putnam, Handler, & O’Leary-Zonarich, 2003)
Urban Middle School reading comprehension and mathematics percentile ranks on standardized tests improved from the first (pre-intervention) to the second (intervention) test dates, increasing 18 and 25 percentage points respectively
(Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, and Feinberg, 2005)
17
New Hampshire state PBS Initiative(Muscott, Mann & LeBrun, 2008)
28 schools implementing PBS in first cohort 1 pre, 13 elem, 6 MS, 4 HS, 4 mixed level
Reduction of: 6010 ODRs, 1032 suspensions, Reductions recovered 1701 days of student learning
PBS Implementation associated w/: Academic gains in math occurred in 16/22 (73%) of schools that
achieved 80% or better on the SET Academic gains = increase in percent of students achieving basic or
above on state math test Improvement in language arts were less pervasive
18
Illinois
Schools Achieving 80/80 on the SET -- 62% of 3rd grade students met the Illinois State Achievement Test Reading Standard (n=52)
School Not achieving 80/80 on the SET -- 47% of 3rd grade students met the Illinois State Achievement Reading Test Standard (n=69)
(Horner, Sugai, Eber, & Lewandowski, 2004)
19
Level of Improvement PBS v. Non-PBS schools in 1 Oregon District
20
Bethel Grade 3 Reading & ODR's
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
Years
% o
f Stu
dent
s M
eetin
g S
tand
ards
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Beh
avio
r R
efer
rals
per
100
stu
dent
s
Reading
ODR/100
21
Grade 5 Reading and ODR's
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
Years
% o
f Stu
dent
s M
eetin
g St
anda
rds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ODR
's p
er 1
00 s
tude
nts
Reading
ODR/100
22
Grade 8 Reading & Mid School ODRs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
Years
% o
f Stu
dent
s M
eetin
g S
tand
ards
0
50
100
150
200
250
Beh
avio
r R
efer
rals
per
100
stu
dent
s
Reading
ODR/100
23
Bethel 10th Grade Reading & High School ODR's
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
Years
% o
f Stu
dent
s M
eetin
g S
tand
ard
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Beh
avio
r R
efer
rals
per
100
stu
dent
s
Reading
ODR/100
24
McIntosh, Chard, Boland & Horner
District implementing both SW-PBS & SW Reading model
25
26
27
Several studies have illustrated that schools implementing School-wide PBS have decreased problem behavior, increased time spent in academic instruction, and are associated with improved academic outcomes.
Current research is encouraging, but remains descriptive in nature and does not have the experimental control needed to confirm a relationship between school-wide PBS and improved academic performance.
28
Simply providing a research-based curriculum may not provide all students access, particularly if the learning environment is chaotic and unsafe.
And implementing School-Wide PBS may not reduce problem behavior if students have such low skills that classroom instruction is aversive.
Academic and behavioral success may be symbiotic, as an effective behavior system allows effective academic instruction to take place.
29
Conditions of Full implementation of SW-PBS
a) Classroom management and curriculum variables would be adapted so academic tasks become less aversive
b) reduction in ODRs would mean more minutes spent in academic instruction
c) the minutes spent in academic instruction would be more effective
d) there would be less peer support for academic failure, and e) there would be an increase in the structured prompts,
contingent feedback and support for academic behavior.
We might hypothesize that with these conditions in place a school could affect the academic gains of students.
(Putnam, Horner & Algozzine, 2006)
30
Of course, these same students will not learn to read in a school or classroom that is behaviorally chaotic.
In order to have students receive an effective education we need effective behavior support interventions, an empirically validated curriculum as well as effective instruction.
31
Academic-Behavior Message
Good Teaching Behavior Management
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity
Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems
32
References Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide
positive behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 701-712.
McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 146-154.
McIntosh, K., Flannery, K.B., Sugai, G, Braun, D., & Cochrane, K.L. (in press). Relationships between academics and problem behavior in the transition from middle school to high school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions.
McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Good, R. H. (2006). The use of reading and behavior screening measures to predict non-response to School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Review, 35, 275-291.
McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., & Braun, D. H. (in press). Reading skills and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education.
Nelson, J. R., Johnson, A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53-62.
Putnam, Horner & Algozzine (2006). Academic Achievement and the Implementation of School-wide Positive Behavior Support, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Newsletter, 3.
