Context of the Study
Behavioral problems within the classroom are an ongoing concern for teachers and administrators alike. Nationwide, administrators and classroom teachers are seeking ways to successfully address the overlapping challenges of discipline and instruction (Baer, 1998). Schools do not adopt a single policy of behavior modification because the same, single method will not work for every teacher, student, administrative team or school. More schools recognize that quality instruction is a powerful management strategy and that evidence-based practices help assure students a safer and more effective learning environment. These approaches range from direct instruction on conflict resolution, refusal skills, and peer mediation, to school-wide positive behavior support systems (Gable, Hester, Hester, Hendrickson, & Sze, 2005).
School-family-community partnerships must provide an increased focus on youth development by including young people as partners in the decision-making process, developing their assets and talents in setting both outside and inside the school, and providing opportunities for youth to serve as resources to their communities (Warren, Edmonson, Griggs, Lassen, McCart, Turnbull, & Sailor, 2003).
Student discipline and behavior modification in public schools can be promoted through large-scale intervention that targets the entire student population. Different methods of school wide behavior support may be required given the types of discipline problems encountered in a particular school and the practical exigencies that must be considered when designing these interventions. By comparing alternative approaches to school discipline, it should be possible to evaluate differential effects and through multiyear evaluations of outcome, determine whether prevention efforts are realized.
Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions of middle school teachers regarding the effectiveness of behavior modification program at the middle school level.
Rationale for the Study
While the debate regarding problem behavior continues, teachers, administrators and students are looking at behavior modification programs to help them solve their issues. Behavior modification programs have been implemented in schools, which changed the overall behavior and academic tone in schools. However, some people believe that these programs are not the answer. The two most commonly cited and related sources of knowledge were 1) trial and error and 2) the children themselves. Garrahy, Cothran, & Kulinna (2005) identified a particular situation regarding trial and error. Jamie (a teacher in her 7th year in the profession) said, “It’s trial and error. You just learn by experience and every child is different and every experience is different and I think you learn better tools to make the flow a little easier for both of you.” Anna (a teacher in her 6th year in the profession) agreed: “It’s trial and error methods the first couple of years. I had some problems and I would try and fail and if it didn’t work out, you tried something new.” In a thorough review of the literature there has been a limited focus on the steps that lead to successful behavior modification programs, all individuals who play a part in the change of behavior, and the outcomes from these implemented programs. This proposed descriptive-survey study will work to address this void in the literature and to document middle school teachers’ perceptions regarding behavior modification programs within the classroom and throughout the school.
Research Questions
This study will examine three broad research questions: (a) What are teachers’ perceptions of student behavior before the programs? (b) What did teachers do while students were engaging in disruptive behavior? (c) What do teachers believe is an appropriate reaction to a student’s disruptive behavior? and (d) Do teachers’ believe behavioral programs have the potential to be effective?
Definition of Terms
The following is a definition of terms that will be used for this study:
Classroom Management- “The arranging of the environment for learning and maintaining and developing student-appropriate behavior and engagement in the content” (Rink, 2002, p.2).
Positive Behavior Support (PBS)- “An intervention approach based on the application of validated behavioral practices to achieve socially important and durable effects on both problems behavior and broader lifestyle outcomes” (Oswald, Safran, Johanson, 2005, p. 266).
Saoi Program- “Saio” is a Gaelic term meaning learner, wisdom, and scholar. This program encourages students to make academic connections with their community and form social bonds with each other (Strahan, Cope, Hundley & Faircloth, 2005, p. 25). Effective Behavior Supports Survey (EBS Survey)- A needs assessment (Oswald, Safran, Johanson, 2005, p. 268).
Office Discipline Referral (ORD)- ODR patterns are analyzed so that the data can be used to build a schoolwide behavior program. (Irvin, et. al.,2006, p.10).
Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)- the process of identifying the events that reliably predict and maintain problem behavior (Turnbull, et. al. 2002 p.388).
Review of the Literature
Student discipline has been an ongoing concern within the classroom. A report by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the U.S. Attorney General, for example, highlighted the serious behavior problems confronting our public schools and recommended various solutions (Dwyer, et.al., 1998). [g1] Schools often use specific strategies to deal with certain disciplinary outbreaks such as codes of conduct and suspension to manage a students’ behavior. These methods of discipline help maintain a safe and orderly environment that is conducive to effective teaching and learning. According to Rink (2002), classroom management is the arranging of the environment for learning and maintaining and developing student-appropriate behavior and engagement in the content. Difficulties with student discipline require a significant amount of time from school personnel who must manage crises and attend to interpersonal conflicts between students and teachers. Finally, serious behaviors such as aggression, harassment, and weapons possession create an unsafe and dangerous environment. For these reasons, there is a need to design effective discipline practices (Luiselli, et. al. 2002).
“I appreciated your differentiation between classroom management and discipline. After 35 years in the classroom, I can see how so many times discipline problems are exacerbated by poor management.” (p. 51).[g2]
Effective management is the foundation from which learning can occur. In addition to its impact on the student learning, the ability to manage effectively in an important factor in teacher job satisfaction (Schottle & Peltier, 1991). Teachers play a managerial role in disciplining the students that they teach during the school year. They provide behavioral guidelines for the classroom behavior, which allow students to display during the school day. For example, primary factors in classroom management would include, but not limited to (a) establishing routines; (b) developing class expectations and consequences with students; (c) teacher consistency; and (d) maintaining student cooperation throughout the lesson for maximum time on task (Rink, 2002). As teachers go through trial and error with their management outline they are able to identify their strengths and weaknesses in their classroom management. As one teacher reflected on their trial and error method they realized “Willingness to learn, or the necessity of learning, from failure was a key management knowledge growth”. Rink’s study demonstrated how one teacher learned from her mistake:
I had all the activities lined up. I was going to overwhelm them with things. But what I neglected to do was to have an opening [set induction]. They came in the door and they saw all this stuff laid out [equipment] and they just ignored me. That taught me right away that I needed to meet them at the door and have established what they are to do when they enter my classroom. That’s what really started my awareness that management is important. (p. 58).
Teachers are not only required to engage in the teaching/learning process, but they have the added burden of addressing the behaviors that impede this process. There are a number of factors that can undermine a teacher’s ability to respond successfully to behavior problems in schools. They include: (a) difficulty relating to an increasingly more diverse group of students, (b) lack of skills to adequately assess student behavior and to identify major factors associated with problem behavior; and (c) the inability to develop pupil-specific academic interventions that provide students success and, at the same time, promote social interactions (Gable, 2000; Wilson, 1998). Teachers have to put systems in place such as structure, procedures, and routines in order to maintain proper classroom management (Marshall, 2005). Those three systems in particular are useful for managing the instructional environments to increase positive academic and behavioral outcomes, as well as specifics about using behavioral techniques as preventive measures. When procedures are learned, practiced, and reinforced, instruction becomes efficient (Marshall, 2005). However, not every teacher has the magic formula to eliminate disruptive behavior. Some teachers believed that professional development, current literature, and workshops allowed them to change or modify some of the systems they had in place in order to improve classroom management.
…[Change] came from watching other teachers teach and going to
workshops. Professional development is critical. Every teacher that goes into a new situation is going to teach the way they’ve been
taught and then is going to say “Hey, you know, I really don’t need to do this” or “I need to do a little bit more of this.” (p. 58).[g3]
Teachers also believe another contribution to classroom management is to communicate with other teachers from different schools[g4] . Engaging in conversation with other teachers may and will allow for change in the classroom. According to Garrahy, Cothran, and Kulinna (2005), teachers recognized the value in visiting other schools, the role of professional conferences, workshops, courses, and staying current in the professional literature as tactics for continually refining their management skills.
A teacher-student relationship is one that should be established from the first day of school. “Students are more likely to succeed when they feel connected to school. School connection is the belief by students that adults in the school care about their learning as well as about them as individuals” (Blum, 2005). Inviting Positive Classroom Discipline[g5] documented three powerful features that characterize successful classrooms:
Successful classroom management promotes self-discipline. Successful classroom management begins with Academic Learning Time. Successful classroom management promotes academic achievement.
In these classrooms, students not only learned more about the subject matter and performed better on tests, they also learned more about how to understand themselves teachers and to make better decisions. Successful teaches encouraged these connections strategically as they prepared for lessons, responded during lessons, and followed up with individual students:
1) Preparing ourselves and our classrooms: Successful teachers perceive preparation as key to behavior modification. They prepare the room to minimize disruptions, plan lessons to flow smoothly, and design routines to maintain momentum. More importantly, they reflect on their goals for teaching self-discipline and their attitudes toward students.
2) Responding to teachable moments: When disruptions occur, successful teachers think about the causes of misbehavior and respond to students as individuals, using disruptions as teachable moments and opportunities to model self-discipline.
3) Following up to process decisions and develop trust: In the hours and days after dealing
disruptions, successful teachers work with students to encourage them to process the
decisions they made, learn from mistakes, and model caring in action (p. 26).
Strahan, Cope, Hundley, & Faircloth (2005) revealed teaching students to deal with specific issues lessens the misbehavior and disruptions in the classroom. Most importantly the guidance teachers are providing a stronger relationship between teacher and student. For example, one day, Sally approached a student who had been in a belligerent and defiant mood much of the day. As she began to explain that he was disrespecting her, the student looked her in the eye and stated, “ Mrs. Hundley, you’re right. I have been disrespectful. But I haven’t cursed you and last year, I would have cursed you. So, I am improving.” (p.28). Also words of encouragement can boost a students’ behavior such as “we know you can do it,” and “this is not what I know you could have given me today, but I accept this, and tomorrow we will look for more from you.” (p.28). Moments where teacher and student can reflect on can lead to a conversation where both teacher and student can identify both their strengths and weaknesses. In addition, this conversation can enable both parties to think through choices and consequences.
Positive Behavior Support is an intervention approach based on the application of validated behavioral practices to achieve socially important and durable effects on both problem behavior and broader lifestyle outcomes (Carr et al., 2002; Horner, 2000; Sugai et al., 2000). Behavior modification programs that follow this philosophy had to be implemented due to the change of behavior within the public school system. Not only has programs been implemented, but changes to the School Code of Conduct as well. Keith Kalb, a spokesman for the Department of Education, said that the revised disciplinary code expands infractions to include the intimidation or threat to someone because of the variations of gender or sexual orientation; clothing or headgear deemed unsafe or disruptive to the educational process; failure to provide required ID when asked by a school official; graffiti; and varying forms of trespass (p. 6). Nowadays schools rely on these types of changes to help improve the overall tone of the school. According to Group on School Behaviour and Discipline (2005), they believed that a national behaviour charter should set an overall framework within which, each school would establish its own specific behaviour policy, rules, rewards and sanctions (p.23). Programs such as Saoi Program and Positive Behavior Support (PBS) have made major contributions to provided aide to the discipline issues that have been a deep concern to students, teachers, administrative staff, and other personnel members in a school building. Mellie Cope and Sally Hundley initiated a program in their middle school due two students who were very difficult to teach. Their program nurtured success in students who had not previously been successful. In sSpring 2002, they asked their principal to allow them to plan a non-traditional approach for students who were struggling in school. They envisioned an integrated curriculum with opportunities for school community service. With the principal’s blessing, seventh grade teachers identified fifty-six students who were not reaching their potential within the traditional classroom due to discipline discipline/behavioral problems, excessive absence, below average grades, below grade level test scores, free/reduced lunch status, and/or home situations that were getting in the way of school success. Working with their first team of students in the fall of 2002, Mellie and Sally developed their program based on two connected principles of practice. As Sally noted in an interview,
In the fall we start out with two philosophies, and we explain to them the two philosophies and go from there. One is just a simple golden rule-type philosophy. “If you’re good to teachers, teachers can be good to you.” The second one is that we just don’t do things a student can do. Students answer the telephones. Students often run copies. There are a lot of things that we step back so that we can teach.
From these two connected principles of practice, Mellie and Sally crafted an approach to discipline that focused on clear academic expectations. Mellie explained this approach as follows:
One of the insights we learned from Ruby Payne (2003) was
that our students respond best when we treat them like adults. They often function as adults in their homes. Speaking to them like
children does not register. We don’t focus on a discipline plan that
is too nitpicky. These kids have lives that are more complex than a
traditional middle schooler’s and so it does not help to spend time
giving demerits because they’re chewing gum or because they
have a cp on (p. 27).
Like the Saoi Program, Positive behavior Support (PBS) focus on some of the same attributes that make the program effective. PBS emphasizes a lifestyle focus in a natural settings implemented by teachers, families, and perhaps others, using s array of assessment and support procedures (Carr et al., 1999 Turnbull & Turnbull, 1999). A key focus of PBS is building responsive environments that “stack the deck” in favor of appropriate student behavior and preferred quality of life outcomes (p. 378). School staff is also a vital part of the program. To begin this process, the staff was asked to complete a needs assessment, the Effective Behavior Supports Survey (EBS Survey) ((EBS, n.d.; Lewis & Sugai, 1999). The results of this assessment assisted the consultants to facilitate discussion among staff concerning disciplinary priorities (p.268). Not only are surveys used, but also Office Discipline Referral (ODR) measures are used for databased decision making about the behavior in schools. ODR measures appear to be a valuable data source both for identifying school wide patterns of problem behaviors and for monitoring individual student interventions (Nakasato, 2000; Putnam, Luiselli, & Handler, 2001; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997; Taylor-Green & Kartub, 2000). Another form of measurement is the Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA). Functional behavioral assessment the process of identifying the events that reliably predict and maintain problem behavior. The primary purpose of FBA is to identify information that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of behavior support plans (Sugai et al., 2000). Universal interventions are geared toward primary prevention by including all students. These supports help promote a positive climate and a culture of competence within the school by shifting the focus from exclusively punitive disciplinary approaches to more positive approaches that acknowledge appropriate behavior. These approaches are tailored to the needs and strengths of school systems but typically share a number of core components, including the establishment of a team to guide the school’s PBS efforts; the definition of school-wide expectations; the provision of direct instruction to students on behavioral expectations; the establishment of effective systems to acknowledge appropriate behavior and address problem; and the regular use of data to plan, monitor, and evaluate interventions (Colvin, 1991; Colvin, Kameenui, & Sugai, 1993; Cotton, 1990; Lewis & Sugai 1999; Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997; Todd, Horner, Sugai, & Sprague, 1999). Through the effective use of these three levels of support (universal behavior support, specialized group behavior support, and specialized traditional behavior support), we expect that schools will be able to adequately address the range of problem behavior that impedes the learning process and that all students will be provided with the support necessary to succeed in school (p.81).
Because previous research has shown that the behavior in school has worsened, the present study will explore several perspectives from teachers, students, data-driven information and behavioral programs within our school system. As stated earlier, the primary research question to be examined in the proposed study is, how do teachers think the behavior modification programs (Positive Behavior Support—PBS and Saoi Program) affect the quality of academic instruction? This study will have a limited amount of information since one school is being studied. However, the study will have different views from both general education and special education teachers. This study will give a closer look at how disruptive behavior has changed over the years. It also allows teachers a chance to express themselves about an area that is dominating the school system.
Limitations This study has several limitations:
4) For this study, a self-report survey was developed for middle school teachers. Although the survey has reserve items to control for inconsistencies in respondents, it is impossible to ensure that respondents are providing valid and accurate information regarding how they use the behavior modification programs during the school day.
2) Another limitation of this study’s methodology is that survey research typically has low response rates. If a 51% or greater response rate is not achieved in this study, the findings could be skewed toward respondents that may overly favor and not favor the process or product under investigation. Low response rates could change the demographics of the original population from which the sample of participants was drawn from.
Delimitations
This study has the following delimitations:
1) The sample of behavioral management is selected from one school in an
urban community in Brooklyn, New York.
5) The definition of terms is limited to this particular study of effective behavior modification programs within a middle school setting.
Method
Design of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions of middle school teachers regarding the effectiveness of behavior modification program at the middle school level. For the purpose of this study, four broad research questions will be focused on: (a) How teachers’ perceive their students’ behavior before the programs? (b) What did teachers do during disruptive behaviors? (c) Are teachers over re-acting about a student’s disruptive behavior? And (d) Do teachers think the behavioral programs really effective? For the purpose of this study a descriptive-survey research design will be utilized.
Participants
For the purpose of this study, 60 teachers will be selected from a middle school in an urban district currently participating in an inquiry-based approach to behavior modification, sponsored by the Saoi Program and Positive Behavior Support. Years of teaching in the middle school range from one to fifteen. Prior to their participation in the program, the majority of teachers had limited or no previous experience incorporating a behavior modification program into the classroom.
Survey Instrument The Effective Behavior Support (EBS) Survey will be used as the survey instrument. This survey instrument was taken from Positive Behavior Support (2005). The first section of the questionnaire consist of general demographics items: (1) position in the school, (2) subject area teaching, (3) required time to complete survey, (4) assess behavior support based on each system feature (i.e. in ace, partially in place, not in place), (5) features rated as partially in place or not in place, ‘What is the priority for improvement for this feature (i.e. high, medium, low)?”
Section Two of the survey consists of a section eighteen Likert-type designed to gather teacher perceptions as to how they perceive the implementation of school-wide systems are aiding in the classroom to address disruptive behaviors. These items use a three-response scale, and ask teachers to indicate the current status and priority for improvement (i.e. in place, partial in place, not in place, high, medium, low).
Section three consists of a nine-item checklist for teachers to indicate which non-classroom setting system are currently in place and which is a priority for improvement.
Section four of the survey provides teachers with eleven Likert-type items designed to ascertain what teachers believe what classroom systems are in place.
Section five of the survey consists of eight checklist items based on individual student systems varying from current status to priority for improvement.
Procedure
In order to gather teacher perceptions about behavior modification programs, a survey questionnaire was constructed. Each questionnaire will be accompanied by a cover letter, which will contain instructions to aid in completing the survey, a statement as to the purpose of the study, and a confidentiality statement informing participants as to how the data will be used and reported. In order to obtain more accurate information, participants will be given anonymity in their completing the questionnaire; however, participants will be asked after completing their surveys to place them in my personal mailbox.
As part of the research process a pilot study will be conducted prior to administrating surveys to the sample. A draft of the survey will be administered to approximately 10-20 middle school teachers. This pilot group will be instructed to provide feedback regarding the survey and any clarification or addition of survey items, directions, or formatting. Based on this feedback the survey will be refined. A final survey will be administered to the entire sample of teacher through the use of in-office mail. All participants will be given approximately two weeks from receipt for the survey packet to return all materials.
Three weeks following the initial survey handout, a follow-up letter will be sent out to all participants reminding them to complete and return their questionnaire if they hadn’t already done so. Quantitative survey data collected for this study will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. References
Babkie, A.M. (2006, January). Be proactive in managing classroom behavior. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 41 (3), 184-187.Retrieved January 22, 2006, from Ebsco Host
Discipline code tweaked to ensure standard of safety and learning in public schools. (2005, September 21). The New York Amsterdam News, p. 6.Retrieved January 31, 2006, from Ebsco Host.
Gable, R. A., Hester, P. P., Hester, L. R., Hendrickson, J., & Sze, S. (2005, September/October). Cognitive, affective, and relational dimensions of middle school students implications for improving discipline and instruction. The Clearing House, 79(1), 40-44. Retrieved January 22, 2006 from Ebsco Host.
Garrahy, D. A., Cothran, D. J., & Kulinna, P. H (2005, September/October). Voices from the trenches: An exploration of teachers’ management knowledge. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 (1), 56-63. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from Ebsco Host.
Homer, R., Sugai, G., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (October, 2005). School-wide positive behavior. University of Oregon.
Irvin, L. K., Horner, R. H., Ingram, K., Todd., A, W., Sugai, G., Sampson, N. K., & Boland, J.B., (2006, Winter). Using office discipline referral data for decision making about student behavior in elementary and middle schools: An empirical evaluation of validity. Journal of Positive Behavior interventions, 8 (1), 10-23, from Ebsco Host.
Luiselli, J.K., Putnam. R. F., & Sunderland, M. (2002, Summer) Longitudinal Evaluation of behavior support intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4 (3), 182-188. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from Ebsco Host.
March, R. E. (2002, Fall). Feasibility and contributions of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 10 (3). Retrieved January 31, 2006, from http: r03.webmail.aol.com/15106/aol/en-us/Mail?display-message.aspx
Marshall, M. (2005, September/October). Discipline without stress, punishments, or rewards. The Clearing House, 79 (1), 51-54. Retrieved from Ebsco Host.
Oswald, K., Safran, S., Johanson, G., & Ohio University. (2005). Preventing trouble: Making schools safer places using positive behavior supports. Education and Treatment of Children, 28 (3), 265-278. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from Ebsco Host.
School behaviour and discipline. Educational Journal, 90, 23. Retrieved January 31, 2006, from Ebsco Host.
Strhan, D.B., Cope, M.H., Hundley, S., & Faircloth, C.V. (2005 September/October). Positive discipline with who need it most lessons learned in an alternative approach. The Clearing House, 79 (1), 25-30. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from Ebsco Host.
Turnbull, A., Edmonson, H., Griggs, P., Wickham, D., Sailor, W., Freeman, R., Guess, D., Lassen, S., Mccart, A., Park, J., Riffel, L., Turnbull, R., & Warren, J. (2002, Spring). A blueprint for school wide positive behavior support: Implementation of three components. Council for Exceptional Children, 68 (3), 377-402. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from Ebsco Host.
Warren, J.S., Edmonson, H.M., Griggs, P., Lassen, S. R., McCart, A., Turnbull, A., Sailor, W. (2003, Spring). Urban applications of school-wide positive behavior support: Critical issues and lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5 (2), 80-91. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from Ebsco Host.
Appendix Effective Behavior Support (EBS) Survey Assessing and Planning Behavior Support in Schools
Name of school Date
District State
Person Completing the Survey:
Special Educator
General Educator
Educational/Teacher Assistant
1. Complete the survey independently.
2. Schedule 20-30 minutes to complete the survey.
3. Base your rating on your individual experiences in the school. If you do not work in classrooms, answer questions that are applicable to you.
To assess behavior support, first evaluate the status of each system feature (i.e. in place, partially in place, not in place) (left hand side of survey). Next, examine each feature:
a. “What is the current status of this feature (i.e. in place, partially in place, not in place)?”
b. For those features rated as partially in place or not in place, “What is the priority for improvement for this feature (i.e., high, medium, low)?”
4. Return your completed survey to by .
SCHOOL-WIDE SYSTEMS
Current Status
Feature
Priority for Improvement
In Place
Partial in
Place
Not in Place
School-wide is defined as involving all students, all staff, & all settings.
High
Med
Low
1. A small number (e.g. 3-5) of positively & clearly stated student expectations or rules are defined. 2. Expected student behaviors are taught directly. 3. Expected student behaviors are rewarded regularly. 4. Problem behaviors (failure to meet expected student behaviors) are defined clearly. 5. Consequences for problem behaviors are defined clearly.
6. Distinctions between office v. classroom managed problem behaviors are clear. 7. Options exist to allow classroom instruction to continue when problem behavior occurs.
8.Procedures are in place to address emergency/dangerous situations. 9. A team exists for behavior support planning & problem solving. 10. School administrator is an active participant on the behavior support team. 11. Data on problem behavior patterns are collected and summarized within an on-going system.
12. Patterns of student problem behavior are reported to teams and faculty for active decision-making on a regular basis (e.g. monthly). 13. School has formal strategies for informing families about expected student behaviors at school.
14. Booster training activities for students are developed, modified, & conducted based on school data.
15. School-wide behavior support team has a budget for (a) teaching students, (b) on-going rewards, and (c) annual staff planning. 16. All staff are involved directly and/or indirectly in school-wide interventions.
17. The school team has access to on-going training and support from district personnel.
18. The school is required by the district to report on the social climate, discipline level or student behavior at least annually.
Name of School ______________________________________ Date ______________
NONCLASSROOM SETTING SYSTEMS
Current Status
Feature
Priority for Improvement
In Place
Partial in Place
Not in Place
Non-classroom settings are defined as particular times or places where supervision is emphasized (e.g., hallways, cafeteria, playground, bus).
High
Med
Low
1. School-wide expected student behaviors apply to non-classroom settings.
2. School-wide expected student behaviors are taught in non-classroom settings.
3. Supervisors actively supervise (move, scan, & interact) students in non-classroom settings.
4. Rewards exist for meeting expected student behaviors in non-classroom settings.
5. Physical/architectural features are modified to limit (a) unsupervised settings, (b) unclear traffic patterns, and (c) inappropriate access to & exit from school grounds.
6. Scheduling of student movement ensures appropriate numbers of students in non-classroom spaces.
7. Staff receives regular opportunities for developing and improving active supervision skills.
8. Status of student behavior and management practices are evaluated quarterly from data.
9. All staff are involved directly or indirectly in management of non-classroom settings.
Name of School ___________________________________ Date ______________
CLASSROOM SYSTEMS
Current Status
Feature
Priority for Improvement
In Place
Partial in Place
Not in Place
Classroom settings are defined as instructional settings in which teacher(s) supervise & teach groups of students.
High
Med
Low
1. Expected student behavior & routines in classrooms are stated positively & defined clearly.
2. Problem behaviors are defined clearly.
3. Expected student behavior & routines in classrooms are taught directly.
4. Expected student behaviors are acknowledged regularly (positively reinforced) (>4 positives to 1 negative).
5. Problem behaviors receive consistent consequences.
6. Procedures for expected & problem behaviors are consistent with school-wide procedures.
7. Classroom-based options exist to allow classroom instruction to continue when problem behavior occurs.
8. Instruction & curriculum materials are matched to student ability (math, reading, language).
9. Students experience high rates of academic success (> 75% correct).
10.Teachers have regular opportunities for access to assistance & recommendations (observation, instruction, & coaching).
11. Transitions between instructional & non-instructional activities are efficient & orderly.
Name of School ______________________________________ Date ______________
INDIVIDUAL STUDENT SYSTEMS
Current Status
Feature
Priority for Improvement
In Place
Partial in Place
Not in Place
Individual student systems are defined as specific supports for students who engage in chronic problem behaviors (1%-7% of enrollment)
High
Med
Low
1. Assessments are conducted regularly to identify students with chronic problem behaviors.
2. A simple process exists for teachers to request assistance.
3. A behavior support team responds promptly (within 2 working days) to students who present chronic problem behaviors.
4. Behavioral support team includes an individual skilled at conducting functional behavioral assessment.
5. Local resources are used to conduct functional assessment-based behavior support planning (~10 hrs/week/student).
6. Significant family &/or community members are involved when appropriate & possible.
7. School includes formal opportunities for families to receive training on behavioral support/positive parenting strategies.
8. Behavior is monitored & feedback provided regularly to the behavior support team & relevant staff.
Name of School _____________________________ Date _____________
[g1]And what were the problems and the recommendations? Knowing that there ws a report doesn’t provide a foundation for your study. It is the content of the report that is important.
THIS IS NOT LISTED IN YOUR WORKS CITED [g2]You need to tell us author and date!! [g3]Are you studying how teachers learned to implement a system? If not, this is not relevant literature.
I DON’T AGREE, THIS QUOTE ILLUSTRATES THE STATEMENT BEFORE IT…BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE IT IN ORDER TO PLEASE YOUR TEACHER. [g4]What does this have to do with their perceptions of behavioral management systems? [g5]You need to cite this source.
IT IS NOT LISTED IN WORKS CITED
