Positive Behavior Support: Foundations/CHAMPS

Lydia Hernández Positive Behavior Support: Foundations/CHAMPS 2010-11 The Dallas Independence School District (Dallas ISD) launched a Safety Initiative in 2004-05 as a five-year districtwide effort to meet federal and state mandates that require a Campus Discipline Management Plan. Texas Senate Bill (SB) 1196 required the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to develop rules related to training that included behavior management. TEA responded by establishing a Positive Behavior initiative for implementation in Texas schools. Texas Education Code (TEC) Chapter 37, Section 37.0021(a) cites the state s policy: to treat with dignity and respect all students including students with disabilities. The District Improvement Plan (DIP) mandates a safe and secure environment for all staff and students to work and learn. Dallas ISD adopted the procedures and curriculum of the research-based Safe & Civil Schools Series (S&CS) components for decreasing disorderly conduct incidents and classroom disruptions so that they do not take away from its primary mission of preparing students for graduation. The district s vision was to create learning environments at its campuses that are (1) safe (time and energy are not wasted in everyone trying to protect themselves); (2) civil, (everyone is respectful to everyone); and (3) productive (students are motivated and engaged in learning). The focus of the district s initiative was to provide campuses training, assistance, and support to improve student achievement by improving schoolwide discipline and positive behavior. Program Implementation and Budget For 2010-11, the district s program focus was identified as application of the S&CS s processes using the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) framework. The district continued implementation beyond its fiveyear initiative. This was the seventh year of implementation. The goal of PBS is to enhance the capacity of schools to provide a sustained, positive, preventative, and instructional approach for their students behavior management. PBS was implemented to meet that goal using the Safe and Civil Schools components: Foundations focuses on positive behavior support and schoolwide discipline improvement; Safe Transitions and Reduced Tardies (START on Time!) was designed to create safe transition procedures, and reduce tardiness and classroom disruptions by late arrivals; and CHAMPs was the classroom component that guides teachers on promoting responsible student behaviors during instruction. The components are a set of materials to At-a-Glance 1 EA11-179-4 guide schools in designing processes that will result in improvement of safety and civility across school settings. The components share a set of beliefs that emphasize: treatment of all students with dignity and respect, skills and behaviors necessary for success must be taught, student misbehaviors are teaching opportunities, and motivation and responsibility should be encouraged through positive interactions and building student relationships. The components were aligned with the Response to Intervention (RTI) model for behavior (Tier 1). Campus based areas of concentration were both on and off the campus and included common areas such as cafeterias, hallways, courtyards/patios, and buses/bus loading areas. Common areas are places where large numbers of students are present at the same time. Budget In its grant needs statement, the district cited problem behavior as the single most common reason why students are removed from regular classrooms and for teachers leaving a teaching position. Research shows that traditional harsh punishment and zero tolerance policies have not been effective in improving behavioral climate in schools. The program was funded by Title II, Part A, Subpart 2. Section 21.23 Improving Teacher Quality State Grant. The purpose of the funds is to increase academic achievement by improving teacher and principal quality. One locally funded coordinator oversaw implementation of the program. The 2010-11 funding was $212,000; this was $18,000 less than previous year s funding. Table 1 presents the budget allocations. Approximately 29 percent of the contracted services allocation was used to fund local consultants who provided gang services/training for students, parents, and individual campus support requests. Activities may include but are not limited to training, recruiting, and retaining highly qualified teachers and principals in methods of improving student behavior in the classroom and how to use data to improve student learning. Table 1 2010-11 Budget Allocations Object Category Amount Code 6100 Personnel $26,479

6200 Contracted Services $128,52 2 6300 Supplies and Materials $56,499 Total $212,00 0 Program Objectives The following previously established program implementation guidelines were continued in 2010-11. Campuses will be organized in a cohort system. A Foundations school leadership team will be trained to lead the campus schoolwide behavior management and improvement efforts. Campus administrator team will be required to attend training. The campus principal s active support and leadership is key for success. Campuses will participate in a three-year training plan. This includes two years of training with a third year of follow-up support. Campuses will be expected to continue their projects beyond the training plan to ensure student safety and will attend an annual training session. All campus staff is to be involved in the implementation of their plan. Foundations team will conduct campus training. Campus data will drive decision-making. Campuses will use an ongoing improvement cycle. Common areas will be restructured to ensure student safety and civility. Campus Guidelines for Success will be developed, taught, and posted throughout the building. Campus teachers will complete CHAMPs training (classroom management component). Campus administrators will be trained on coaching classroom management. Campuses will update and implement the campus discipline management plan in their CIP action plan. School Characteristics In 2010-11, 72 campuses were divided into seven groups designated as cohorts (Table 2). One group was made up of campuses that have been in Cohorts 1-4. Some re-tiering of campuses has been necessary due to lack of implementation, administrative changes, or a campus environment that jeopardized the safety of the students. Program staff used the term re-tiering to imply change in placement in the cohort hierarchical level. Table 2 2010-11 Cohorts Cohort(s) School Type Total HS MS ES 1-4 12 21 1 34 5 6 1 1 8 6 2 4 8 14 7 5 5 6 16 Total 25 31 16 72 Results for activities designed to help campuses successfully implement the Safe and Civil Schools Series process included but were not limited to the following: Professional Development The five-year secondary campus-training plan initiated in 2004-05 was completed in 2008-09. However, the training was continued for the seventh year to include elementary schools. Campus teams are to be composed of one administrator and a maximum of seven staff members. Team members should be respected and influential with campus stakeholders in order to lead the school improvement activities. Foundations school leadership teams participated in staff development to complete their current phase of the following three-year training plan that consists of four sessions of three modules: Year 1: The Process Year 2: Behavior in the Common Area Year 3: Safety, Discipline, and Behavior Support Cohorts 1-4 were schools that have completed the three-year training plan. Cohorts 5, 6, and 7 schools were still in the training phase. In 2010-11, Cohort 5 completed Year 3 of implementation; Cohort 6 completed Year 2; and Cohort 7 completed Year 1. A consultant from Teaching Strategies, Inc. conducted the trainings that included a morning presentation and an afternoon team work-session. Teams received technical assistance from the consultant, program coordinator, and Foundations coaches on the improvement plans for the areas the campus selected using campus data. Projects were to be completed and implemented during the training year. Approximately 865 team members, selected by the campus administrator, attended 15 Foundations sessions that included the annual reimplementation session for Cohorts 1-4. The total represents double counts due to participation in the multiple trainings required. Approximately 592 team members were teachers and 104 were campus administrators. The remaining team members included but were not limited to 33 counselors, 35 teacher assistants, and 101 other professional and paraprofessional campus staff. The program coordinator led the classroom management training with support from a team of 2

classroom teachers as part of a capacity building effort. This effort was in response to campus administrators requests for Foundations and CHAMPs training on the campus for their entire staff. CHAMPs training was delivered to 43 new teachers and other classroom teachers requiring technical assistance. Referrals were based on various reasons such as individual assistance needed with classroom management; new to grade level (result of leveling); reassignment due to the district s budget crisis; or new teacher status. A CHAMPs for Administrators session focused on Chronic Misbehavior. Follow-up, on-site training, violence intervention and prevention trainings for students and parents were to be provided by the coordinator. Results were not available due to the coordinator s release because of budget cuts. Foundations Coaches Thirty-six Foundations coaches were assigned as implementation and audit liaisons to 72 of the 73 Foundations campuses. Their main responsibility was to provide on-site support for program implementation, promote schoolwide acceptance of the program, attend the trainings with their school teams, and assist with site visits and surveys. Coaches were from the Student Services Department. Fourteen coaches were assigned one school each, fifteen were assigned two schools, eight to three schools, one coach provided support to four schools and one school had a vacancy. Coaches were generally assigned to campuses they served in their main job responsibility. Their established presence on the campus enabled them to work in a setting where they were already familiar with the administration, staff, and campus procedures. School Policies Nineteen campuses in training this year were required to submit school policies. START on Time! was the policy most campuses chose as a priority for improvement on their campuses. This was followed by Common Area policies with no specific areas(s) for improvement defined. Other Common Area Policies identified specific areas for improvement (After School Pickup, Dismissal Plan, Hallways, Cafeteria, Student Arrival, and Playground Policy). Site Visits Campus visits were conducted during the year to provide feedback on implementation. The consultant, coordinator, and Foundations coaches conducted 13 campus visits. Expected outcomes included successful structuring of school settings, student behavior that indicated that responsible behavior expectations were taught, active and positive supervision of student behavior and immediate and consistent corrections by staff. Results of the campus visits indicate that the Safe and Civil Schools processes are implemented to different degrees at Foundations schools. Campuses received feedback on observations, and recommendations were made for enhancing or improving the effectiveness of its implementation.observation results for implementation of the Module 1 processes at the 13 campuses indicated the lowest level of implementation was Guidelines for Success and highest for Team Drives Process. Other processes included Data Collection and Analysis, Administrator Support/Leadership, and Communication and Staff Involvement. Implementation Rubric Schools were given the option to complete a self-assessment implementation rubric to rate their perceptions of the current phase of implementation. Data was not available due to the coordinator s release. Safety Surveys A total of 19 schools administered safety surveys developed by S&CS that were designed to measure perceptions of students and staff on safety issues, student-to-student interactions, student attitudes about school, school rules and expectations and school problems. Approximately 15,057 students from eight high schools and 11 middle schools and 773 staff members from six high schools and three middle schools completed a survey. The staff survey included three additional categories: school rules and standards, staff interactions and school policies, and school-family relationships. Campuses were urged to use the survey data to design effective discipline management policies for the school. Survey results revealed that in general, students feel safe in the school (75%). Students and staff indicated that students treated each other with less respect in the hallways. Students also included the locker rooms/gym. Transition between classes generally provides an environment where large number of students moving at one time may provide opportunities for negative behaviors. Students were split about 50/50 that they would report illegal or dangerous conduct but 60 percent of staff disagreed that students would tell a staff member. Highest student perception percentages in the area of school problems included: theft and damage of personal and school property and harassing and physically hurting students. On the average, about 75 percent of students agreed that they had been taught the rules and expectations for behavior in the school areas. Students indicated that they were glad to come to school; believe their work was important; and were proud to come to school. About half of staff respondents disagreed that their school had a consistent approach to behavior management, and slightly over half (59%) agreed that they receive sufficient support when dealing with 3

difficult students. Nearly all respondents indicated that they know how and when to respond to student misbehavior. High percentages of staff indicated that excessive tardies and absences were a problem. A low percentage (31%) did not believe that student threats/violence to staff were a problem. Campus Discipline Management Plan As a federal and state requirement, schools must develop an individual campus discipline plan based on a needs assessment as a component of their Campus Improvement Plan (CIP). A template was provided in the CIP format that is based on the principles of the Safe and Civil Schools Series components to be customized by each individual campus. A review of 10 CIPs found that all addressed discipline management largely due to the inclusion of strategies, and/or procedures of the Safe and Civil Schools processes (Section 6) and the Safe, Secure, and Orderly Environment target (Section 3) in the template. However, it appears that campuses address this section in the CIP as a compliance issue and did not customize it for their campus based on data from a needs assessment. In general, campuses tended to submit their plans with the strategies as is on the template. Disciplinary Offenses As required by Chapter 37, Safe Schools Act and Texas Education Code, the district s Student Code of Conduct defined and communicated student behavioral expectations to students and parents for the various kinds of misconduct that may result in disciplinary consequences. The district categorized offenses into the following five escalating levels of infractions in 2010-11 in contrast to four levels in 2009-10. Level I and Level II Level III Offenses - categorized as Discretionary Level IV Offenses - categorized as Mandatory Level V Offenses - categorized as Expellable Offenses reported for each level are displayed in Figure 1. The district s Student Discipline Office reported a total of 63,294 offenses for 2008-09, 52,919 for 2009-10 and 42,712 for 2010-11. Total offenses decreased by about 10,000 over the last two years. Level V Level IV Level III Level II Level I 182 2,330 4,144 18,374 17,682 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V Series1 4,144 17,682 18,374 2,330 182 Figure 1. 2010-2011 disciplinary offenses. Table 3 presents the most common offenses for 2010-11. The total for offenses 15 and 40 was 19,420. These were offenses that threaten the safety of school personnel. This demonstrates the need for immediate development and implementation of strategies to provide a safe and secure environment for its staff. Table 3 Most Common Offenses, 2010-11 Offense Level/Offense Description N 15 II Disrespect of school personnel 16,266 29 III Fighting 7,263 4 I Dress and grooming code 4,124 40 III Profanity/obscene gesture 3,154 towards personnel 27 III Bullying 2,020 25 III Assault Class C (student on 1,836 student) 49 IV Drugs (non-felony) 1,835 Summary The January 2011 revision of the DIP states the need to ensure all campuses and district offices have a safe, secure and orderly environment. District and campus staffs need to be trained in the district s discipline prevention and intervention model, including how to set an environment for positive, consistent and pro-active student behavior interventions. The district s focus on increasing academic achievement is lost when campus staff must devote time to deal with misbehavior and tardiness. The district can achieve its expectations set in the DIP through implementation of proactive, intense, and durable strategies, processes and interventions targeted for students with intensive and challenging behavior. The focus of the Foundations process was to improve student performance by improving student behavior. Therefore, the use of the Safe & Civil Schools Series should be continued. Its research-based and proven strategies can reduce misbehaviors if implemented 4

correctly and support is provided. The Positive Behavior Support Foundations/CHAMPs program had been primarily implemented as a training model. However, it should have been implemented as originally envisioned: the vehicle to meet the district s safety and civility goals. Due to budget cuts, the program coordinator was released. Nevertheless, the program should be continued as a proactive effort often expressed by district trustees. The district has invested hours of training of its campus staff. At times it had been viewed as ineffective by those outside campuses which may be due to lack of training of non campus-based staff. The program has suffered from lack of administrative support due to the departure of staff familiar with its original intent and its placement in the Professional Development Department. Campuses have continuously expressed conflicts in implementing the program due to the lack of support and the increased pressure to focus on academic achievement. Based on a review of the results of the process activities, a renewed prioritization by district leadership and continued implementation are recommended. For more information contact Program Evaluation at 972-925-6457. 5