Implementing classroom behavior interventions and instructional time in high schools

¶ … Discipline with Dignity

Cardsmax

The goal of the current research is not to conduct a thorough examination or make any inferences about the quality of research in the area of behavioral interventions and classroom management plans for students, but to present a broad stroke assessment of where we are as a field. Articles were culled from peer-reviewed journals and identified using electronic database systems, including Google Scholar, Eric, and Psychlnfo, as well as conducting reviews of bibliographies and hand searches of primary journals, including the Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, and Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disorders. Teaching appropriate behavior skills is important but it is not the only aspect of instruction for young children who display negative behaviors. Preschool curriculum and instruction focus on the cognitive, social, and emotional development of children. Teachers are responsible for teaching academic and social skills. Therefore if children are exhibiting negative behavior which impedes their academic learning, teachers need to purposefully design opportunities and activities to guide the students' development of appropriate social behavior (Smith, 2009, p. 147).

In the article written by Capizzi (2009) the components of an effective plan were given. The writing starts by explaining that there is a myriad of writing concerning classroom management strategies, and not all strategies are in fact created equal. This means that it is important to document those strategies that prove to be the most successful. One of the key components is to insure that clear concise rules are set, as well as clear expectations. The article discusses six key areas that teachers and administrators can use to guide their development plans or evaluations of existing plans:

1. Structure

2. Classroom layout

3. Classroom decor

4. Rules

5. Routines

6. Maintaining and monitoring behavior (p.3)

One of the most taxing things that any educator must deal with is what to do when there are circumstances in the classroom that call for a contract with student, educational staff, and parents. These contracts are often utilized to lay out the expectations of the teacher to the students and his or her parent(s). A contract also offers the educator an opportunity to set obtainable goals for the student that allow opportunities for positive reinforcement while meeting behavioral objects through the contract. Lastly, a contract also provides a sense of responsibility to the student, and holds them accountable for their individual actions and success while utilizing the contract. These contracts also afford aid to an educator to help maintain control in the classroom, and an opportunity to keep students focused with a calm, directed learning environment. It is important to note that there is not a one size fits all when it comes to finding the appropriate contract for a particular student. Often educators and schools will have to use varying aspects that work with their particular population of students. In this research, we are looking at the various interventions utilized and their impact on the student's behavior and learning.

Capizzi (2009) depicts the significance of Classroom management plans and goes on to explain that they should be tailored to fit each particular group of students and their unique needs. Since each new school year brings a new group of students, classroom management plans should be reevaluated annually and modified to suit the particular requirements of the teacher and students. Evaluating a management plan can be difficult for teachers and administrators. New teachers, whose experience may be limited to using other teachers' plans during student teaching experiences, tend to have trouble establishing their own management system. Veteran teachers sometimes see their management style as always having worked in the past and resist evaluation and change. Administrators can find it difficult to evaluate a management plan because they do not have first-hand experience with the students in a teacher's classroom and they also do not want to appear judgmental or dictatorial. Teachers and administrators have utilized a form called a Plan Appraisal Worksheet (PAW). The worksheet Capizzi (2009) explained further was created to aid in the development and review of individual classroom management systems. The PAW helps educators conduct self-assessments regarding the plans that they have in place and for plans that are and will be created.

One thing is certain all educators want to insure that positive behavior is present in the learning environment that they provide for their students. Terrance, Peter, Rosenberg, & Borgmeier (2010) conducted research associated with Positive Behavior Support (PBS) in secondary schools. One of the first things discussed in this article is the primary premise behind PBS is that the structure and actions of systems, or environments influence the behavior of individuals. The researcher explains that in a school setting, the key to effective prevention is in the development of strategies that begin by affecting the actions of adults and environments, resulting in positive outcomes for students. The strength of PBS is its flexibility to include a wide-range of interventions as they best suit the needs of each student.

(Benedict, Horner, & Squires, 2007, p. 176) Additional key features of PBS include the formation and use of a leadership team to help implement PBS within the school or program and databased procedures to monitor progress. In early childhood classrooms, the leadership team may include lead and assistant classroom teachers, administrators, families, and related service personnel (e.g., mental health specialists) who frequently work with preschool teachers to support children's social and emotional development. Data collection procedures must consider the organizational structure (e.g., schedules, routines) of early childhood classrooms. Although PBS has a strong research base to support its use within educational and social service environments serving children and adolescents who exhibit challenging behavior, its use in early childhood settings has received limited attention. They go further to explain that currently at the time of the research, there has been a case study of implementation of PBS in a religious preschool and one experimental evaluation of PBS consultation to address the challenging behaviors of two children in a preschool classroom. The researchers conclude by explaining that these studies demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of using PBS in early childhood settings. However, they mirrored much of the clinical work being done in early childhood settings that involves a focus on tertiary, individualized interventions for children who are already engaging in challenging behaviors.

PBS is neither a curriculum nor a program of prescribed strategies. Rather, it can be conceptualized as a framework under which systems identify predictable problems, select logical strategies to improve outcomes, facilitate consistent implementation, and use data to evaluate their success. Rather than looking at PBS as three separate phases, it is helpful to conceive of it as a sequence or continuum of processes and practices ranging from the most general universal strategies (i.e., rules, routines, and arrangements) to the most specific intensive interventions (i.e. functional behavior assessment and function-based intervention). The more effective the general strategies are, the less need there will be for the most intensive individualized interventions. Four essential components steps in common across levels and equally applicable school-wide, among smaller subsets of non-responders, and for individuals experiencing the most chronic failures, which include prediction, high-probability interventions, consistency, and assessment (Terrance et al., 2010, p. 515).

Researchers have explained that many behavioral problems can be avoided by establishing a solid classroom management plan at the beginning of the school year. Although many teachers learn about basic classroom management strategies in teacher licensure programs and in-service training, a review of class-wide supports and their implementation can help teachers revitalize and strengthen their classroom management plans. It is easy to become repetitive and do what has always been done rather than to reevaluate and revise, but employing the same strategies from year to year is ineffective when student populations and needs change. Capizzi (2009) conducted research to give an overview of several areas of classroom management that are vital for teachers and students across all areas of Kindergarten to 12th grade.

(Killu, 2008, p. 143) Oftentimes, several individuals will note problem behavior with a student. The different perspectives and vocabulary of these individuals can lead to a variety of terms used to describe the problem behavior. These terms may be general or specific, but the resulting consensus can have an impact on the effectiveness of a BIP. For example, a student may be described as "aggressive." Such broad descriptors can have different meanings for different people. Does the student hit others, destroy property, or verbally threaten others? Achieving consensus on the target behavior among all of those implementing the BIP ensures that the plan is implemented consistently, under appropriate conditions. A description of a target behavior should be so specific that an individual unfamiliar with the student should be able to identify the student and the target behavior when it occurs.

Behavior is a major concern for all academies of learning. Research indicates that behavior is not only a concern for students with disabilities; there is also call for concern with students that have no disabilities as well. Nahgahgwon, Umbreit, Liaupsin, & Turton (2010) discussed the targeted problems that their research discussed classified in a group titled noncompliant. This classification includes students that do not follow teacher's directions; they are disruptive, and antisocial. These traits are significant in students that have been documented to have poor long-term negative behavior patterns. The researchers discussed the utilization of Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA), which are used to aid in the creation of Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIP) these tools are used to impede negative behavior. Research continues to provide documentation of the importance and durability of function-based intervention. Studies have been conducted with students and adults of all ages, with individuals with various disabilities and with no disabilities, in various settings, and with a variety of problematic behaviors.

(Killu, 2008, p. 140) FBA is required prior to the development of a BIP for students with disabilities who have behavioral challenges that impede functioning in the educational environment. Practitioners have sought to analyze the factors involved in student behavior, and fortunately, for educators, a behavioral technology for the assessment of challenging behavior exists. Functional behavior assessment involves using several methods to determine the causal and maintaining factors for a behavior that lead to the development of intervention strategies to meet the individualized and unique needs of the student. The FBA mandate in IDEIA continues to reflect a change in practice from one-dimensional approaches that simply seek to increase desired responses or eliminate problem behavior, to a multifaceted process that focuses on examining the contextual variables that set the occasion for problem behavior. linking assessment results to intervention planning, and seeking to develop positive instructional or behavioral strategies and supports to address more appropriate and functional skills.

(Blood & Neel, 2007) Positive behavioral support (PBS) programs have made a significant contribution in efforts to improve school and classroom environments, understand and manage problem behavior, and provide a positive school environment conducive to student learning. PBS has had an impact on improving the overall school environment. Borrowing from public health research, school-wide approaches to strengthening social competence and ameliorating problem behavior have been divided according to levels of intervention. Tier 1 (Primary) interventions consist of universal school-wide programs designed to reduce new cases of problem behavior. Targeted interventions make up Tier 2 (Secondary) programs. These are designed to reduce current cases of problem behaviors that do not respond to Tier 1 approaches. The final tier (Tertiary) focuses on individualized interventions that seek to reduce complications, intensity, and severity of current cases. These usually involve the most difficult of problems that do not respond to less intense interventions. Often children with EBD in self-contained classes fall into this category. Functional behavior assessment (FBA) is the most commonly recommended response to severe student behavior challenges. Universal interventions (Tier 1) have shown some success in the researcher's findings.

Another reason to focus on classroom management to promote positive behavior is to create a positive learning environment. Discipline problems in schools are consistently noted as a top concern for teachers and the public and a contributor to teacher stress and attrition. Helping teachers cope with the range of behavioral difficulties in the classroom is of paramount importance, given attrition rates and critical teacher shortages in areas such as special education. Effective classroom management systems are vital to positive learning environments for teachers and students alike. PBS is an approach to providing a range of provisions to promote positive behavior, prevent problem behavior, and provide individualized support to those who need more focused intervention. The evidence-based practice of PBS has been recommended as an important strategy for dealing with challenging behavior (Capizzi, 2009, p. 2)

Terrance et al.,(2010) conducted research to study were to further investigate the effectiveness of function-based intervention with young children at-risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders EBD in an inclusive setting, and to assess the social validity of these interventions to the classroom staff responsible for implementing them. The study was conducted in three phases. Phase 1 involved completing a descriptive FBA for each student. In Phase 2, a function-based intervention was systematically constructed for each student and then tested experimentally in the classroom. In Phase 3, the interventions were implemented in the classroom for an extended period during the activity each teacher identified as being the most problematic. This study was conducted at an elementary school that serves approximately 800 students in grades K-6 and includes 35 classrooms. Participants were three students in either kindergarten or first grade who displayed chronic disruptive behavior. Each student was randomly selected from a pool of eligible participants who were identified for further intervention based on the school's existing three-tiered model of behavior supports (p. 539).

(Killu, 2008, p. 141) believes that It should be stressed that conducting an FBA is a comprehensive process supported by data and not simply a matter of those involved with a student-achieving consensus on the problem and speculated causes. This process may involve multiple sources (teachers, parents, peers) and multiple environments and contexts (e.g., group activities vs. independent activities, different classrooms, classroom vs. playground or lunchroom). Due to the necessity of examining all of these variables, a team-based approach is essential. Once the function or reason for the behavior is determined, appropriate intervention strategies can be developed and implemented. The relationship between developing interventions based on assessment information has been established.

for example, in the Curriculum-Based Measures (CBM) literature where student assessment is linked to instruction. Research indicates that using CBM results in more effective instructional plans. Similarly, an established body of research indicates that successful interventions depend on identifying the environmental correlates of problem behavior and that identifying function serves to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of behavioral intervention (p.141)

A central feature of three-tiered models of prevention is that data are monitored to determine responsiveness. Reliable data need to be collected regularly to (a) determine how the overall school is responding and (b) identify students for secondary and tertiary supports In terms of monitoring academic outcomes, there are a number of curriculum-based measures such as Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELS) or AIMSweb that can be used to monitor student's academic performance, particularly in the area of reading. Typically, these are administered three times per year, in the fall, winter, and spring. Students' performance is measured against established benchmarks for each measure. Students identified as below benchmark can be then placed into tier two interventions to address their specific acquisition deficit. In terms of behavioral outcomes, many schools rely predominantly on office discipline referral (ODR) data to identify students who are not responding to primary prevention efforts. Although ODR data are commonly used to determine responsiveness, these data tend to suffer from poor reliability unless there is a systematic plan (Kalberg, Lane, & Menzies, 2010, p. 563)

A descriptive FBA was conducted for each student to identify the antecedent conditions that set the occasion for their target behaviors and the consequences that maintained these target behaviors. Data were collected via file review, teacher and student interviews, and direct observation in the classroom. These data were then analyzed to identify the function of each student's target behaviors. The interventions developed for each student were tested through an A-B-A-B design. Sessions were conducted during the activity each teacher identified as being most problematic. Sessions lasted the normal length of the activity, which ranged from 10-25 min, and the time was held constant for each child. "On-task behavior" was measured using a 30-s whole-interval recording method. Treatment integrity data were also collected for every interval in every session using the same 30-s whole-interval procedure. Specifically, at the end of each interval, a "+" was scored if all intervention components required during the interval were correctly implemented throughout the entire 30 s. If staff failed to implement any required part of the intervention at any point during an interval, a "-" was scored. Results showed that the function-based interventions produced stable behavioral improvements for each student, even though their target behaviors served different functions and required different intervention methods. Social validity assessments, conducted pre and post, also favored the function-based intervention. Treatment integrity data, collected daily, confirmed the interventions were implemented with high levels of fidelity. (Terrance et al., 2010, p. 553)

Lane et al. (2009) discuss that many schools across the country have adopted three-tiered models of prevention that include primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of support to meet the multiple needs of an increasingly diverse student population. Primary prevention efforts focus on preventing harm from occurring. Secondary prevention efforts focus on reversing harm by supporting students who do not respond to primary efforts. Tertiary prevention efforts focus on reducing harm by supporting students exposed to multiple risk factors who may have not responded to primary or secondary efforts. Response to intervention (Rtl) and PBS are two such models, with some schools now implementing integrated models that include features from both paradigms. Functional assessment-based interventions are highly individualized interventions that focus on the reasons why problem behaviors occur. The process begins by conducting a functional assessment to determine the antecedent (A) conditions that set the stage for the target behavior (B) to occur and the consequences (C) that maintain the behavior. The specific tools include structured interviews with the teacher, parent, and student; direct observations to collect A-B-C data; rating scales to determine the presence of acquisition deficits; and experimental manipulations of environmental events to determine if there is a functional relation between environmental events and the occurrence of the target behavior.

(Benedict, Horner, & Squires, 2007, p. 175)Young children, families, teachers, and early childhood service delivery systems may benefit from a comprehensive, system wide model that includes consultation to support the prevention of young children's challenging behaviors. One comprehensive, team-based approach that has been well tested in school settings and shows promise in its adaptation to preschool settings is positive behavior support PBS which again is described as a system wide model for reducing challenging behaviors. The model includes three levels of prevention and intervention to meet the needs of all children within a school or program setting At the primary level of prevention, all children are provided with a safe and predictable environment with a focus on building positive relationships. Attention is given to the physical classroom design (e.g., well-defined learning centers), organization (e.g., schedule that is regularly followed), and verbal interactions with children, families, and other teachers. Additionally, all children are exposed to clearly defined behavioral expectations (e.g., use quiet voices inside, use listening ears, use safe hands) that are explicitly taught during large group instruction (e.g., circle time). The secondary level of support involves small-group, targeted interventions for children who exhibit some deficits in social skills and/or challenging behaviors.

(Kalberg et al., 2010, p. 568) The SSBD is a three-stage multiple-gating screener that is designed to identify students that are at-risk, specifically those with externalizing and internalizing behaviors. This inexpensive screening tool is empirically validated for use at the elementary level. The SSBD becomes more focused in successive stages, beginning with teacher nominations and rankings. In Stage 1 teachers read the descriptions of internalizing and externalizing behaviors and categorize all of their students into one of the two domains. Teachers then rank students in each of the domains from most like (1) to least like (10). Students ranked 1, 2 and 3 in the internalizing and externalizing domains pass into Stage 2. In Stage 2 teachers complete two nor-med rating scales; the critical events index (CEI) and the combined frequency index (CFI) for all students. Whereas CEI measures high-intensity, low-frequency behaviors. The CFI measures low-intensity, high frequency behaviors on both adaptive and maladaptive domains. Students exceeding normative criteria pass into Stage 3. In Stage 3 students are observed in both structured and non-structured settings using direct observation techniques.

It is explained that the analysis of the functional assessment data is used to determine the reason why (function) the target behavior occurs. In brief, the behavior functions to secure (positive reinforcement) or avoid (negative reinforcement) attention; activities or tangibles; or sensory stimuli. Initially, functional assessment procedures originated in clinical settings to assist individuals with developmental disabilities who displayed self-injurious behavior. Lane et al. (2009) discuss that in the past 10 years, functional assessment procedures have been applied beyond the clinical setting, in naturalistic settings with different populations. For example, functional assessment-based interventions have been designed, implemented, and evaluated in general education classrooms, self-contained classrooms, and alternative learning centers with students at risk for school failure.

The second component to this systemic approach is described by Lane et al. (2009) as the Function- Based Intervention Decision Model developed to guide intervention planning. The model is predicated on two questions: (1) Is the replacement skill in the child's repertoire? And (2) Does the classroom environment represent effective practices? Answers to these questions allow the treatment agent to focus the intervention on one of three methods. Method 1: Teaching the Replacement Behavior is used when the student does not have the replacement behavior in his repertoire (e.g., an acquisition deficit) or when the behavior is not performed fluently, and when the classroom represents effective practices. This method requires that the students be taught the replacement behavior. Method 2: Improve the Environment is used when the student is able to perform the replacement behavior; however, the antecedent conditions in the classroom may not offer the most effective conditions for learning to occur for this student. This intervention involves (a) eliminating any existing aversive events and (b) providing a context that sets the stage for the replacement behavior to occur. Method 3: Adjust the Contingencies is used when the student is able to perform the replacement behavior and when the antecedent conditions represent effective practices. This intervention method involves increasing the rate of reinforcement for the replacement behavior and decreasing the rate of reinforcement for the target behavior. All three methods include three features: teaching or modifying antecedents; reinforcing the occurrence of the replacement behavior; and withholding reinforcement (extinction) of the target behavior. Once the intervention method is selected, the interventionist works with the teacher to design specific plan tactics.

One of the first considerations a teacher should make when developing and evaluating a management plan is the amount of structure he or she would like to have in the classroom. Classroom structure can also be thought of as the level of factors a teacher chooses to leave to chance vs. The level the teacher chooses to direct explicitly in the classroom. Structure sets the underlying tone in the classroom and is the basis from which the components of a management plan stem. The amount of autonomous control the teacher holds over the classroom should be individually suited to each classroom situation and group of students and is often dictated by the appropriate level of structure warranted by various classroom factors such as grade level, subject matter being taught, and academic skill level. Regardless of the theoretical basis for a teacher's management style, students tend to demonstrate more appropriate academic and social behavior in more structured classrooms (Capizzi, 2009, p. 3).

Consideration has been made for students that have learning disabilities (LD). Often this is a group of students that are proposed to be without effective means of behavioral modification. Sugai & Horner (2009) discussed the effect of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) and the use of Responsiveness-to-intervention (RtI). Given the initial concern for improving early identification and achievement outcomes for students with LD, RtI has been described as an alternative approach to the traditional IQ discrepancy approach for identifying students with LD. As an alternative, this approach has been characterized as a multi-step or -tiered approach in which student progress is closely monitored to make good instructional and intervention decisions, which might include consideration for special education services because of possible LD. Moving away from a "one intervention -- one school" perspective, RtI promotes a careful consideration of an array of interventions that are organized to respond to the increasing support needs of students. More specifically, RtI has six core defining features. 1. Interventions that are supported by scientifically-based research. 2. Interventions that are organized along a tiered continuum that increases in intensity (e.g., frequency, duration, individualization, specialized supports, etc.). 3. Standardized problem-solving protocol for assessment and instructional decision-making. 4. Explicit databased decision rules for assessing student progress and making instructional and intervention adjustments. 5. Emphasis on assessing and ensuring implementation integrity. 6. Regular and systematic screening for early identification of students whose performance is not responsive to instruction.

Yet, some researchers are concerned that mandating functional behavioral assessments in IDEA may be premature if the practice is not yet supported by a strong evidence base to support the efficacy of functional assessment-based interventions with persons with and at risk for high incidence disabilities in naturalistic settings. In behavioral terms, a generalization error may have occurred if functional assessment procedures originally tested with adults with developmental disabilities in clinical settings have not been established as an evidence-based practice for use in K-12 educational settings with students with and at risk for high incidence disabilities (Lane et al., 2009, p. 575)

Therefore the researchers concluded that RtI provides an excellent umbrella of guiding principles for improved assessment and intervention decision making. School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports (SWPBS) is an example of the application of these principles to the challenge of establishing formal systems of behavior support for all students' school- and classroom-wide. To guide SWPBS implementation, researchers provided a self-assessment for teaming, agreements, databased action planning, accurate implementation, and evaluation for school and leadership implementation teams. In the end, the goal is to develop an integrated continuum of behavioral interventions and practices that is effective, efficient, relevant, and durable (Sugai & Horner, 2009)

(Capizzi, 2009, p. 12)An effective and universally supportive classroom management plan is fundamental to establishing an effective learning environment for all students. Heterogeneous classrooms are increasingly common, thereby expanding the depth of universal supports that need to be in place. Classrooms need to function to serve a wide range of students' academic, social, and behavioral abilities. When put in place at the beginning of the year, classroom management plans can help teachers create supportive environments that allow teachers to teach and allow all students to learn.

The implications of examining the setting and contextual factors on the development of an efficient, effective, and relevant BIP cannot be underestimated. Interventions may focus on manipulating setting events (e.g., preventing the occurrence of a setting event, removing a setting event, minimizing/maximizing the effects of a setting event) so as to set the occasion for the occurrence of more desired behavior. Programming may also focus on manipulating other antecedents when setting events are in effect. Although school personnel may not have access to setting events outside of the school environment (or even be aware of them), operating within the contingencies and context that one does have access to and can control can make a significant difference in the effectiveness of an intervention (Killu, 2008, p. 142)

(Kalberg, Lane, & Menzies, 2010) Across the United States, many school systems are adopting three-tiered models of prevention to support an increasingly diverse student population. Namely, administrators, teachers, and staff are expected to meet the needs of students who vary in terms of academic abilities, cultural backgrounds, behavior patterns, and social competencies. Schools have developed systematic, data driven models that include (a) primary, school-wide supports to prevent harm from occurring, (b) secondary supports such as small group instruction in specific reading or social skills to reverse harm; and (c) tertiary supports such as functional assessment-based interventions to reduce harm. In these models, school wide data are used to identify students who might benefit from secondary and tertiary prevention efforts. Instead of subscribing to a reactive approach that involves waiting for a student to fail academically or act out behaviorally before providing supports, the educational system is shifting to a more proactive stance. This proactive approach involves an instruction-focused model in which all expectations -- academic, social, and behavioral are (a) established by faculty and staff; (b) taught to all students; and (c) reinforced by adults when students meet these expectations. Then, additional evidence-based practices can be delivered in the form of secondary and tertiary supports based on the individual needs of students who are non-responsive to the primary plan (p.562).