1. PAMELA FENNING LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO SCHOOL OF EDUCATION What Research Shows to be Best Practices in Addressing School Discipline

2. Overreliance on Suspension SUSPENSION FINDINGS Associated with more rather than less future behavior problems (Mayer, 1995) Does not teach alternative behaviors to prevent future problems (Fenning et al., 2012) Alienates students and contributes to school climate issues, leading to more schoolwide discipline problems (Vavrus & Cole, 2002)

3. Collateral Suspension Damage Associated with entry to the juvenile justice system, termed “School to Prison Pipeline” (Losen & Martinez, 2013) Advent of “Zero Tolerance” has contributed to “criminalization” of behaviors (Skiba & Rausch, 2006)

4. Disproportionality of Harsh Discipline Long-standing research (Children’s Defense Fund, 1975) to current date (Losen & Martinez, 2013) demonstrates 4:1 to 5:1 ratios of students of color being excluded because of discipline Most Impacted:  African-American males,  Students with academic problems  Students in special education

5. Administrative Costs and School Revenue http://community-matters.org/programs-and- services/calculator http://community-matters.org/programs-and- services/calculator From: Community Matters. Suspension Loss and Cost Calculator

6. What Alternatives are There? Suggestions to schools about avoiding suspension need to be coupled with viable alternatives that can be implemented Framework of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)  What are we doing for all students in the building?  What are we doing for some students in the building?  What are doing for a few students with the most intensive needs?

7. ACADEMIC SYSTEMSBEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS Tier 1 Core Instructional Interventions All students Preventive, proactive STUDENTS MTSS and School Discipline 80% Tier 1 Core Universal Interventions All settings, All students Preventive, proactive Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response 15% Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment - based High intensity Of longer duration Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment - based Intense, durable procedures 5% Batsche, G. M., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.

8. MTSS and School Discipline Tier 1 All students Universal Tier 2 Some Students Secondary Tier 3 Few Students Tertiary

9. Overview of Research-Based School Discipline Approaches* EVIDENCE BASED ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINE (aka suspension and expulsion) Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) (Horner et al., 2009) Restorative Justice Practices (Karp & Breslin, 2001) Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, (2011) * Summarized from Fenning, P., & Sears, K. (in press). Schoolwide discipline policies. In G. Scarlett (Ed) Sage Encylopedia of Classroom Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

10. Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) Universal (all students) Horner et al. (2009) Focus on Developing and Directly Teaching Expectations Acknowledging Appropriate Behavior Consistent Corrective Actions Collecting Systematic Data to Evaluate Outcomes (ODRs, climate data) Horner et al. (2009) evaluation findings were reductions in ODRs, improved school climate www.pbis.org

11. Schoolwide Discipline Policies Research * Secondary SWPBS (some students) Focus on groups of students or locations in building where expectations need to be retaught Efficient and rapid delivery of intervention Example, Behavior Education Program (Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007) Should be tied to “function” of behavior (McIntosh, Campbell, Carter, & Dickey, 2009) www.pbis.org

12. Schoolwide Discipline Policies Research Tertiary SWPBS (a few students) Focus on individualized supports for a small percentage of population with most intensive needs Individualized functional analysis of behavior Wraparound planning and supports (Scott and Eber, 2003) www.pbis.org

13. Restorative Justice Origins in Criminal Justice System Focus on Repairing Damage/Harm and Restoring Relationships Doesn’t Condone Behavior But Focus on Restitution Emerging Evaluations are Promising/More Outcome Evidence Needed Prison Fellowship International Center for Justice and Reconciliation web site at: www.restorative justice.org/other/schools/outcome-evaluation.www.restorative justice.org/other/schools/outcome-evaluation

14. Restorative Justice US Studies (Karp & Breslin, 2001) Reductions in school suspensions at middle school level Legislative support in Minnesota http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/StuSuc/SafeSch/RestorM eas/ International Implementation Work (Morrison, 2002) http://www.restorativejustice.org/webtour/restpract ices Staff reported improved student behavior Higher levels of student reports that discipline responses were fair

15. Today’s Practice Example: Building Bridges Building Bridges (Rappaport, 2014) Alternative to Suspension Program Implemented Thus Far as Individualized Support (tier 3) Building Bridges is based on “restorative justice” and “cognitive behavior” principles Students are provided with an “alternative” to traditional out of school suspension

16. Building Bridges Example Building Bridges has been implemented for two years (2012-2014) and evaluated for one year (based on 2012-2013 data) in a therapeutic day school for high school students with serious emotional and behavioral disorders More data is needed and forthcoming

17. Building Bridges (Rappaport, 2014) When referred to Building Bridges option of program is explained to student by social worker/implementation agent, principal/assistant principal or teacher Students learn to take responsibility for their behavior and choices They work on “making things right” with those they have emotionally or physically hurt

18. Building Bridges Process Students are taught skills and strategies they can use to make better decisions in the future Students begin their day in Building Bridges, which is implemented in a space outside of the classroom (e.g., social workers office, could be dean’s office) Students are given a “thinking sheet”, which involves them processing the incident. They describe what happened, how others felt and were effected, how they felt and what would make things better in the future

19. Thinking Sheets (Rappaport, 2014) Students use the thinking sheets to process the incident that occurred and to consider more positive choices to make in the future Modifications to thinking sheets include a multiple choice format if necessary Students are allowed to dictate to the Bridges facilitator if writing is an inhibiting issue Following are examples of thinking sheets

20. Copyright Bridges (2014) Rappaport

21. Copyright Bridges (2014) Rappaport

22. Building Bridges Process Staff who were involved in the incident also describe their perspective on the situation through a “staff perspective thinking sheet” Students also might complete “empathy worksheets” to further help them process the impact they may be making on others around them

23. Copyright Bridges (2014) Rappaport

24. Copyright Bridges (2014) Rappaport

25. Building Bridges Process After students complete the relevant “thinking sheets” and process with a staff, then the student will be asked to “mediate” if warranted

26. Mediation Students are given some control in what time during Building Bridges the mediation will occur Also during their time in Building Bridges, students may complete scenarios and worksheets that are specific to their situation After all of the worksheets have been completed and reviewed, the student can use the remaining time to do school work so they do not fall behind in classes

27. Examples of Scenarios

28. Example of Scenarios

29. Who is capable of running Building Bridges? Bridges facilitator should have some counseling experience. These skills can also be taught. School personnel could be:  School social workers  School psychologists  School counselors  Some teachers, such as special educators  Discipline deans

30. Is Building Bridges Effective? Research team at Loyola University Chicago conducting longitudinal evaluation School collects office discipline referrals data through SWIS Research team analyzed the SWIS data for the 2012- 2013 academic year

31. Is Building Bridges Effective? What is the effect of the program on students’ major referrals?  Fighting  Physical aggression  Drug offenses  Weapons

32. Is Building Bridges Effective? Does participation in Bridges after the 1 st major referral significantly reduce the likelihood of a 2 nd major referral? 31 students had at least one major referral  16 participated in Bridges after 1 st referral  15 did not participate in Bridges after 1 st referral

33. Is Building Bridges Effective? Does Bridges increase the amount of time between the 1 st and 2 nd major referral? 21 students had two major referrals  9 of these students participated in Bridges after 1 st referral  12 of these students did not participate after 1 st referral

34. Time Period Between 1 st and 2 nd Referral Results of a Mann-Whitney U test revealed that students who participated in the program after their first major referral took significantly more school days to generate a second major referral, U = 14.50, z = -2.81, p <.01, r = -.61.

35. Is Building Bridges Effective? Does participation in Bridges after the 1 st and 2 nd major referrals significantly reduce the likelihood of a 3 rd major referral? Participation in two Bridges sessions (after two major referrals) significantly decreases the likelihood of a 3 rd offense compared to participation in one or zero sessions

36. Impact of 2 Building Bridges Sessions Fisher’s exact test demonstrated that, for students with two major offenses, there was a significant association between the number of Bridges sessions and whether or not students had a 3 rd major offense (p <.05).

37. Preliminary Conclusions After the first major referral, implementation of Building Bridges did not reduce the likelihood of a second referral, but it did significantly increase the amount of time it took for students to reoffend. For students with multiple referrals, implementing Building Bridges consistently after referrals seems to reduce the likelihood of subsequent referrals

38. For More Information Youtube video https://www.youtube.co m/watch?v=F2NoJdEBw Pw https://www.youtube.co m/watch?v=F2NoJdEBw Pw Michelle Rappaport, LCSW Bridges Developer and Facilitator

39. Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Integration of Social and Emotional Learning Skills Directly Taught in the Classroom Prosocial Behavior Improves Academic Functioning Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) Has Identified Five SEL Areas  Self Awareness  Self Management  social awareness  relationship skills  responsible decision- making.

40. Social Emotional Learning Resources CASEL Guide Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs (Preschool and Elementary Edition) http://static.squarespace.co m/static/513f79f9e4b05ce7 b70e9673/t/526a220de4b0 0a92c90436ba/1382687245 993/2013-casel-guide.pdfstatic.squarespace.co m/static/513f79f9e4b05ce7 b70e9673/t/526a220de4b0 0a92c90436ba/1382687245 993/2013-casel-guide.pdf

41. SEL Outcomes Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, (2011) Meta-analysis of over 200 schoolwide program identified as SEL (using comparison group) Findings were:  Improved academic functioning  More proactive behavior  Reduced conduct problems at post-test  Significant effects remaining (though not as strong) at six months for the programs that collected data

42. References Children’s Defense Fund. (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children? Cambridge: MA: Washington Research Project. Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, K.B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2010.01564x. Fenning, P., & Sears, K. (in press). Schoolwide discipline policies. In G. Scarlett (Ed) Sage Encylopedia of Classroom Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fenning, P., Pulaski, S., Gomez, M., Morello, M., Maciel, L., Maroney,E., Schmidt, A., Dahlvig, K., McArdle., L, Morello, T., Wilson, R., Horwitz, A. & Maltese, R., (2012). Call to Action: A Critical Need for Designing Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion, Journal of School Violence, 11:2, 105-117 Hawken, L., MacLeod, K. & Rawlings, L. (2007). Effects of the Behavior Education Program (BEP) on problem behavior with elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 94-101. Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133-145. Karp, D.P. & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth and Society, 33(2), 249-272.

43. References Losen, D.J., & Martinez, T.E. (2013). Out of school and off track: the Overuse of suspensions in American middle and high schools. Retrieved from the Center for Civil Remedies Web site at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prison- folder/federal-reports/out-of-school-and-off-track-the-overuse-of-suspensions-in-american-middle-and- high-schools/Exec_Sum_OutofSchool_OffTrack_UCLA.pdf http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prison- folder/federal-reports/out-of-school-and-off-track-the-overuse-of-suspensions-in-american-middle-and- high-schools/Exec_Sum_OutofSchool_OffTrack_UCLA.pdf Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478. McIntosh, K., Campbell, A., Carter, D., & Dickey, C. (2009). Differential effects of a tier 2 behavioral intervention based on function of problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 82-93. Morrison, B. (2002). Bullying and victimization in schools: A Restorative justice approach. Australian Institute of Criminology Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice (No. 219), 1-6. Retrieved from the Australian Institute of Criminology web site at: http://www.aic.gov.au/http://www.aic.gov.au/ Rappaport, M. (2014). Building bridges: An alternative to suspension. Bridges, LLC: Vernon Hills, IL. ISBN: 978-0- 9913798-0-4 Scott, T., & Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school processes: Primary, secondary, and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports, 5, 131–143.

44. References Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion: Questions of equity and effectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063–1092). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vavrus. F. & Cole. K. (2002). "I didn't do nothing"": The discursive construction of suspension. The Urban Review, 34, 87-111.