Differentiated Instruction within Universal Supports: The Need to Address Prior Learning History
Tim Lewis, Ph.D.University of Missouri
OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
pbis.org
ContextThe School Environment Must Support
Appropriate Social & Academic Behavior
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
Response to Intervention
Typical responses to students• Increase monitoring for future problem behavior• Re-review rules & sanctions• Extend continuum of aversive consequences• Improve consistency of use of punishments• Establish “bottom line” • Zero tolerance policies• Security guards, student uniforms, metal detectors, video
cameras• Suspension/expulsion• Exclusionary options (e.g., alternative programs)
However…
• “Punishing” problem behaviors (without a proactive support system) is associated with increases in (a) aggression, (b) vandalism, (c) truancy, and (d) dropping out. (Mayer, 1995, Mayer & Sulzar-Azaroff, 1991, Skiba & Peterson, 1999)
Consider….
If antisocial behavior is not changed by the end of grade 3, it should be treated as a chronic condition much like diabetes. That is, it cannot be cured but managed with the appropriate supports and continuing intervention (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995).
Contributing Factors
• Home– Poverty- Language– Parent/Child interactions
• Community• School• Disability
Contributing Factors - Poverty & Language
Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children
Betty Hart & Todd Risley
Contributing Factors -Parent/Child Social Interactions
• Common Patterns of early learning found in homes of children at-risk for anti-social behavior– Inconsistent discipline– Punitive management– Lack of monitoring
Contributing Factors -Parent/Child Social Interactions
Social Learning• Coercion/Negative Reinforcement (Patterson et
al.)– Present an aversive, remove aversive once the person
complies– “Social skills” to get need met
Contributing Factors
Community (Biglan, 1995)
– lack of pro-social engagement–antisocial network of peers
Contributing Factors
School (Mayer, 1995)
• punitive disciplinary approach• lack of clarity about rules, expectations, and
consequences• lack of staff support• failure to consider and accommodate individual
differences• academic failure
Parent Discipline & Monitoring
Antisocial Behavior
Deviant Peer Group
Social Skills Deficts
Parent Discipline & Monitoring
Parent Discipline & Monitoring
Antisocial Behavior
Delinquency & Antisocial Behavior
Criminal & Antisocial Behavior
Deviant Peer Group
Social Skills Deficts
Social Skills Deficts
Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-12 Adult
Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank (1991)
The Good News…
Research reviews indicate that the most effective responses to school violence are (Elliot, Hamburg, & Williams, 1998 Gottfredson, 1997; Lipsey, 1991; 1992; Tolan & Guerra, 1994)
– Social Skills Training– Academic Restructuring– Behavioral Interventions
Universal Strategies: School-Wide
Essential Features• Statement of purpose• Clearly define expected behaviors (Rules)• Procedures for teaching & practicing expected behaviors• Procedures for encouraging expected behaviors• Procedures for discouraging problem behaviors• Procedures for record-keeping and decision making
(swis.org)• Family Awareness and Involvement
Tier II Interventions• Social-Behavioral Concerns
– Social skills
– Self-management
• Academic Concerns– Peer Tutors
– Check in
– Homework club
• Emotional Concerns– Adult mentors
Linked to School-wide
Tier III
• When small group not sufficient
• When problem intense and chronic
• Driven by Functional Behavioral Assessment
• Linked to school-wide system
RtI and SW-PBS
Importance of Effective Instruction (Sanders, 1999)
• The single biggest factor affecting academic growth of any population of youngsters is the effectiveness of the classroom.
• The answer to why children learn well or not isn't race, it isn't poverty, it isn't even per-pupil expenditure at the elementary level.
• The classroom's effect on academic growth dwarfs and nearly renders trivial all these other factors that people have historically worried about.
Dinham NLLN 27/08/08 20
The Effects of Quality Teaching:accounting for variance in student achievement
The Effects of Quality Teaching:accounting for variance in student achievement
~5-10%
~50%~5-10%
> 30%
John Hattie ( 2003, 2007)
( Findings from meta-analytic research)( Findings from meta-analytic research)
Creating Effective Classroom Environments
• Insuring ALL faculty and staff engaging in effective instruction and classroom management
• Align resources to challenges– Work within existing organization structure– Raze and rebuild
• Must build an environment that simultaneously supports student and adult behavior
On school reform…
Kauffman states “…attempts to reform education will make little difference until reformers understand that schools must exist as much for teachers as for students. Put another way, schools will be successful in nurturing the intellectual, social, and moral development of children only to the extent that they also nurture such development of teachers.” (1993, p. 7).
• Consistent “core” curriculum implemented school-wide (research-based)
• Core instruction follows effective instructional practices (NWREL.org)
• Core instruction implemented with fidelity
• Consistent, prioritized, and protected time allocated to instruction
• Data decision rules to identify a) those at high risk and b) “non-responders” in a timely manner
Universal Supports: Core Instruction
Early Literacy & Behavior(Kelk & Lewis, 2001)
What are the effects of three instructional conditions a) social skill instruction, b) phonological / phonemic awareness instruction, and c) a combination of social skill instruction and phonological awareness instruction on the reading related and/or social behavior of at-risk kindergarten children?
Early Literary Outcome
Social Skill Outcomes
Phonemic Instruction
+/- -
Social Skill Instruction
- +/-
Phonemic and SS Instruction
+ +
Control Group - -
Targeted / Small Group Supports
Tier II
Important Themes
• Part of a continuum – must link to core curriculum
• Efficient and effective way to identify students (Curriculum Based Measures; DIBELS) through FREQUENT monitoring
• Intervention matched to presenting problem but not highly individualized
Targeted Supports
Intensify Instruction• Increase academic
engaged time• Small group / one:one• Increased opportunities
to respond• Supplemental
curriculum
Alter Instructional Environment
• Rules & routines• Attention signal• Ratio of positive /
negative statements• Efficient transitions• Active supervision
Individual / Intensive
Individual
• When small group/targeted not sufficient
• When data indicate high risk*
• Linked to core curriculum / outcomes
*limited data beyond literacy
Individual/ Intensive
• Targeted assessment (Curriculum Based Measures; DIBELS)
• Instruction targets remediation and/or accommodation
• Environment provides multiple and sustained engagement opportunities
• Monitor outcomes and make necessary adjustments (progress monitoring)
Field Elementary School• High Diversity
– School has 290 students; 50% minority; 20% English Language Learners; 13% special education
• Instructional leader turnover• Poverty
– 79% of students qualify for free and reduced lunches
• Highly transient population
Field Elementary School
+ Teachers and Staff committed to the increasing academic and social successof all students
+ A committed Principal who supported faculty in their efforts to change the way the taught to improve children’s lives
Field Elementary School
• Academic Standing– Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
• 5% of all students scored proficient in 2005, according to the Missouri Assessment Program. Breakdown by group:
– 0% African American– 18% Caucasian– 0% Students with disabilities– 0% English Language Learners– 7% Free/Reduced Priced Lunch
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
1-5% 1-5%
5-10% 5-10%
80-90% 80-90%
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive
Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive
Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success
Field Elementary School
• Literacy• In 2004–05, 44% students required
intensive support for reading and writing
• Social Behavior• In 2003-04 Averaging 10.4 discipline
referrals per day
Field Elementary Literacy Data 04-05
30%
26%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2004-2005
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
StructureStructure
Core Reading Core Reading
90 min, 5 days 90 min, 5 days week with:week with:
Intervention Groups 45 min, Intervention Groups 45 min, 4 days week, with:4 days week, with:
(5(5thth day individual focus ) day individual focus )
Tier IIITier IIIIntensive Intensive InterventionIntervention
Classroom Classroom TeacherTeacher
Reading specialists, Sp Ed, ELL, Reading specialists, Sp Ed, ELL, Sp. Lang,Sp. Lang,
K-2 SRA Reading MasteryK-2 SRA Reading Mastery
3-5 Wilson Reading Systems3-5 Wilson Reading Systems
Tier IITier IIStrategic Strategic InterventionIntervention
Classroom Classroom TeacherTeacher
Classroom Teacher Classroom Teacher
Reading Mastery or Soar to Reading Mastery or Soar to SuccessSuccess
Tier ITier IDIBELS benchmarkDIBELS benchmark
Classroom Classroom TeacherTeacher
Classroom Teacher Classroom Teacher
Enrichment based on themes of Enrichment based on themes of core programcore program
Positive Behavior Supports
MU College of Education —140 years of discovery, teaching and
learning
Impact
From 10.4 per day
To 1.6 per day
Impact
• Improved Academic Standing– Annual Yearly Progress
In 2007, 27% of Field’s students scored proficient (up from 5%).
• African American: 0% improved to 16%• Caucasian: 18% improved to 57%• Students with disabilities: 0% improved to 25%• English Language Learners: 0% improved to
27%
Field Literacy Data
30%
26%
44%
40%
27%
33%
40%
29%
31%
51%
25%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark