What Does it Really Mean to be “Doing PBS” and are We Really Doing it Yet? Shawn Fleming, LA Developmental Disabilities Council July 9, 2009 Louisiana Positive Behavior Support Project 2 nd Annual Statewide PBS Conference: Building Sustainability Through Best Practice

Are you doing PBS in your school? Is PBS perceived to be for all students? – Even (especially) for students with extreme challenging behaviors? Do the interventions used meet the standards of PBS: – Science (evidence-based practices)? – Values(maintain student dignity, inclusion, etc.)?

PBS in La. IDEA mandate 1998SW-PBS in La. JJRA

What is Positive Behavioral Support (PBS)? A PROCESS for addressing the needs of a student exhibiting severe challenging behavior. The process involves the assessment of student needs and implementation of positive, non-aversive strategies to support the student in integrated school and community settings.

Louisiana PBS Mission Our purpose is to build the capacity of individuals, families, teams, and agencies within Louisiana to develop positive support systems that facilitate lifestyle enhancement for people who at times demonstrate behavior that puts them at risk of being excluded from full participation in community life

Essential Features of Positive Behavioral Support a grounding in person-centered values a commitment to outcomes that are meaningful from the perspective of a person’s preferred lifestyle a reliance on individualized, functional assessment an appreciation and utilization of multiple interventions and support strategies

Beliefs Persons who exhibit challenging behavior have a right to be supported in – sharing ordinary places and activities – making choices – developing abilities and sharing personal gifts – being treated with respect and having valued roles – growing in personal relationships Change and learning are possible Program’s capacity to support quality outcomes can grow Dignity and respect through acceptable interventions Family centered

Focus Individual Selection Over the past 6 months, the focus individual…  Is at risk of being excluded from inclusive opportunities due to her/his behavior?  Is at risk for being placed in a more restrictive setting due to her/his behavior?  Exhibits inappropriate behavior that interrupts the teaching activities at higher frequencies than that of his/her peers?  Interferes with his/her progress on instructional objectives and/or the progress of his/her peers?  Engages in behavior that causes injury to him/herself and/or injury to others?

 Engages in behavior that results in others avoiding interaction with him/her?  Exhibits behavioral occurrences at higher frequencies than that of his/her peers?  Has received reports from peers or instructional staff regarding difficulties interacting with him/her?  Relies on instructional assistance more than necessary?  Has good overall attendance (a minimum of 90%)?

What is the Positive Behavioral Support Model? A comprehensive approach for addressing severe challenging behavior – Functional Behavioral Assessment Team-based approach (teachers, parents, administrators, pupil appraisal, etc.) Individual child focus Training/Technical Assistance across time

Some Basic Guidelines Not all students need intensive programming Lifestyle changes enhance program effectiveness Behavior serves a communicative function

Changing View of Positive Behavioral Support Teaches or supports the individual with more appropriate ways of expression Attention is paid to the messages conveyed by the behavior Realizes the behavior may be due to a function of the disability Empowers the person Allows the individual some choice and control Sees the person as an individual reacting within an environment Benefits both the individual and the support person

Components of a Positive Behavioral Support Plan Lifestyle/Outcome Change Hypothesis-Based Support Plans Manipulation of Ecological and Setting Events Teaching Adaptive Behavior Expanding the Issues Considered Distinguish Emergency Procedures from Proactive Programming Minimizing Use of Punishers Functional Analysis Multi-Component Interventions Antecedent Manipulations Building Environments with Effective Consequences Communication Behavior Problems as Learning Problems Integrating the Technology Examining Systems Variables

Positive Programming Principles Integration/Inclusion – Physical – Social – Academic – Community Student-Centered Programming/Curriculum Participation Age Appropriate Maintenance of Student Dignity Systematic Instruction Assistive Technology Transdisciplinary Team Functioning Staff Integration and Professionalism

Would you consider a student who inflicts physical pain on others on a regular basis as an exemplary example for how other students should treat others?

The end is inherent in the means.

Traditional Behavior Modification Tells what NOT to do, instead of what to do Misses communicative function and underlying meaning of behavior Assumes the person wants to change and is capable of changing the person Offers the person only one choice Overlooks the context of the person and the patterns of interaction Is there benefit to more than just the teacher?

Aversive vs. Positive Interventions Ted Carr changed the argument to: Do the interventions address the function of the behavior? Are skills taught (i.e., lasting effect)? – Replacement behaviors – Communication based – Functionally equivalent

Corporal punishment the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain but not injury for the purposes of correction of control of the child’s behavior.

One LEAs policy statement For purposes of clarity, corporal punishment, as described herein, shall be defined as, and limited to, the administering of physical punishment by means of paddling or spanking the buttocks. Consideration must be given to the age, size, emotional condition, and health of the students. When physical punishment is administered, there is always the possibility of physical injury and subsequent legal ramifications. Therefore, extreme caution should be employed when administering corporal punishment.

West Feliciana Washington St. Tammany Tangipahoa St. Helena Livingston Coupee Pt. East Avoyelles East Baton Rouge W. Iberville Orleans John St. Charles St. Bernard Plaquemines Jefferson Ascension St. James s Assumption Lafourche St. Mary Terrebonne BeauregardAllen Calcasieu Cameron Jefferson Davis Evangeline St. Landry Acadia Vermilion Lafayette St. Martin Iberia Vernon Rapides Winn Grant LaSalle Catahoula Concordia Caldwell Natchitoches Caddo Bossier Red River DeSoto Sabine Webster Bienville Claiborne Lincoln Jackson UnionMorehouse Ouachita Richland Franklin Tensas Madison Carroll WestEast City of Bogalusa City of Monroe City of Baker City of Zachary Failed to respond to survey Permit Corporal Punishment Ban Corporal Punishment LEA Policy on Corporal Punishment Central Community Survey conducted in 2008 by Louisiana Department of Education (62 of 70 LEAs responded)

Contradictory policies and messages within education Bullying, harrassment, intimidation Conflict Resolution Vs. Allowance of corporal punishment

1.The Assertive Discipline Policy will be reviewed with each student. The student will be directed to inform their parents. The school has the option of sending a copy of the Assertive Discipline Policy to each parent. 2.Corporal Punishment or Alternative ADMINISTRATOR'S ASSERTIVE DISCIPLINE LADDER The School Board has implemented the Assertive Discipline Plan for the treatment of students who violate school rules. Before a student is referred to the administrator for a violation of classroom rules, five (5) steps designated by the classroom teacher will be followed in order to correct the student's discipline problem. Severe clause referrals will automatically be sent to the principal's office. STEP I:

All students, teachers, and other school employees shall take responsible measures within the scope of their individual authority to prevent violations of this policy. BULLYING, INTIMIDATION, HARASSMENT Bullying, intimidation and harassment shall mean any intentional gesture or written, verbal, or physical act that a reasonable person under the circumstances should know will have the effect of harming a student or damaging his/her property or placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to his/her life or person or damage to his/her property and is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for a student.

Inconsistent policies banning Corporal Punishment for people in the custody of the state of Louisiana. Corporal Punishment is banned as a disciplinary practice on inmates sentenced to the legal custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (R.S. 15:829) It is not permissible to use corporal punishment on students in state custody (i.e., foster care). The Department of Social Services recognizes that prohibiting corporal punishment will “break the intergenerational cycle of physical abuse.” – Department of Social Services Foster Parent Handbook, Part 4 “It is never acceptable to slap, strike or hit a foster child.”

Who gets hit the most? Corporal punishment tends to be disproportionately used on students who are minorities, male, poor, and/or with disabilities.* Are we sure we are not hitting kids with disabilities? * A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in U.S. Public Schools, ACLU Executive Summary, February 2009

Count of students with disabilities across grade levels (2005)

Corporal punishment Correlates Corporal Punishment results in higher levels (children’s) aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health. Corporal punishment used on children : Reduces the likelihood that they will internalize society morals and learn the reasons for behaving correctly. Increases their aggressive behaviors and hostile attributions that are predictive of future violent behavior Increases antisocial behaviors such as stealing Results in higher arrest rates when they are ages 17 through 45 Increases the likelihood that the individual will act violently with an adult romantic partner Gershoff, E.T. (2002) Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin 128, 4, pp

Non-Evidence Based Practice Universities cannot conduct research on corporal punishment practices as applied in schools because it does not meet basic ethical standards for humane treatment. There are no training programs to ensure that corporal punishment is implemented with fidelity or appropriately We sanction what would be considered child abuse and/or battery in any other context.

No Added Benefit A review of research from the “eight strongest studies” reflecting the beneficial outcomes of corporal punishment reveals that: Benefits of using corporal punishment are limited to short-term compliance with a parental request Every study that compared corporal punishment with an alternative found that alternative (non- aversive) interventions to be just as effective These studies conclude that there was no support for the necessity of the physical punishment.

If we hit kids are we really doing PBS? Corporal Punishment does not meet the standards based on values nor scientific evidence that are basic tenets of PBS.