1. TRANSFORMING A SCHOOL CULTURE FROM CONSEQUENCES TO RE-ENGAGEMENT COMPASSIONATE DISCIPLINE Irvington School Portland Public Schools

2. WORKSHOP OUTCOMES Participants will: Be given an outline of the transformative process used at Irvington, as well as resources and practical tools used with staff and community members. Be shown what data helped to inform the process, including disciplinary data that reflected equity concerns in the disciplinary process. Be shown how disciplinary data can help inform classroom instruction and equity practices.

3. SCHOOL BACKGROUND Irvington School, Portland Public Schools K through grade 8 465 students Demographics: Asian- 2%, Black- 22%, Caucasian- 53%, Hispanic- 12%, Multi-racial- 10% 41% Free and Reduced Lunch, 5% ESL Historic district, gentrification efforts since the 1980s

4. BENEFITS Experienced staff, average of 18 years experience Staff does not leave until retirement Strong community involvement

5. CHALLENGES Experienced staff, “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?” Strong community involvement, “small town” style gossip mill “White flight” from the middle grades/white families had negative perceptions about students of color Involvement of families of color does not match our demographics

6. MULTIPLE STRAND APPROACH Strand #1- School Discipline Plan Strand #2- Continuing Equity Work Strand #3- PBIS/School Climate Team (Tier 1) Strand #4- Student Intervention Team (Tier 2) Strand #5- Data Review Strand #6- Community Outreach

7. STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLAN SEPTEMBER 2011 Behaviors split into Stage 1, 2, or 3 categories Guidelines as to where students should physically be Positive Supports and Corrective Consequences Teacher/Staff responsibilities Administrative responsibilities Based off of district policy developed in coordination with the Portland Association of Teachers WORK IN PROGRESS!

8. STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLAN SEPTEMBER 2011 Whole Staff Efforts (Tier 1) Early September- Discipline Plan introduced at opening staff meeting through a PowerPoint presentation, copies given to each staff member Mid-September- Copies were handed out again and Teacher/Administrative Responsibilities were reviewed at a staff meeting Late September- Discipline Plan was reviewed at a staff meeting

9. STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLAN ON-GOING, 2011-2012 Whole Staff Efforts (Tier 1) Periodic reminders about discipline procedures Individual consultations with teachers regarding: -cause/function of behavior -intent -what consequence would prevent the behavior from happening again and/or address the underlying need?

10. STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLAN ON-GOING, 2011-2012 Individual Efforts (Tier 2) Individual consultations with teachers and parents regarding: -cause/function of behavior -intent -what consequence would prevent the behavior from happening again and/or address the underlying need? Behavior reports given back with reminders of procedures and examples of correctly completed behavior reports

11. STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLAN MAY 2012 Annual Discipline Plan review required by Teacher’s Association Discipline Plan approved by staff

12. STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLAN SEPTEMBER 2012 New Behavior Report form developed with part of PPS PBIS Team: Tammy Jackson, Jeremy Geschwind, Todd Nicholson, Drew Laurence New Behavior Report form presented to staff PBIS Coach Jeremy Geschwind did a one hour presentation on the function of behavior

13. STRAND #2: EQUITY BACKGROUND PPS “Initiative” to work with Glenn Singleton and train district employees in “Courageous Conversations” and cultural competency Examine data with a racial/ethnic lens Ensure equitable access to education for all students in PPS Irvington is a “Beacon” school in this work- one of the first schools in PPS to begin whole staff Courageous Conversations five years ago 2 hour staff trainings every month, Equity Team, CARE Team, and parent groups Courageous Conversations protocol is foundational to every meeting

14. STRAND #2: EQUITY OCTOBER 2011/ON-GOING Worked with the staff to focus on getting “below the line” information about students during the two hour in-service time Circumstances/situations that can have a direct effect, positive or negative, on student behavioral and/or academic success

15. STRAND #2: EQUITY FEBRUARY 2012 Examination of first and second quarter disciplinary data during two hour in-service time Staff saw that even though only 47% of our students are students of color, 89% of referrals/Behavior Reports were written for students of color Staff discussion about why this had occurred and what could be done to change it

16. STRAND #2: EQUITY APRIL 2012 Examination of students of color who were not being successful academically and/or behaviorally Reflection on what “below the line” information was known about those students

17. STRAND #2: EQUITY SEPTEMBER 2012 Staff reminded about the importance of getting “below the line” information Experienced staff explained this concept to new staff Staff members were given time to make positive/outreach phone calls home

18. STRAND #3: PBIS/SCHOOL CLIMATE OVERVIEW School Climate Team held monthly meetings 4 days of training with Susan Isaacs from the Safe and Civil Schools Foundation (PPS Initiative) PPS PBIS Coach support from Jeremy Geschwind Focus on “Integrity Takes 5” Guidelines and Tier 1 supports Monthly lessons developed to reinforce “Integrity Takes 5”

19. STRAND #3: PBIS/SCHOOL CLIMATE OCTOBER 2011 CHAMPS module workshop- “Building Positive Relationships with Students” during staff meeting -Focus on giving students non-contingent attention -3 to 1 Ratio of Interactions (3 positives interactions for every negative interaction)

20. STRAND #3: PBIS/SCHOOL CLIMATE MARCH-JUNE 2012 Staff input and eventual approval given for: Individual student reward system Monday announcements that reinforce focus for the month School-wide Spirit Day assemblies

21. STRAND #3: PBIS/SCHOOL CLIMATE NEXT STEPS 2012-13 CHAMPS classroom management training, including classwide motivators Continued common area assessment and redesign Continued work on Tier 2 school supports

22. STRAND #4: STUDENT INTERVENTION TEAM (SIT) OCTOBER 2011 Explanation at staff meeting that the Student Intervention Team was a general education body, not a special education referral team Before students can be referred to SIT, teachers have to show evidence of multiple interventions

23. STRAND #4: STUDENT INTERVENTION TEAM (SIT) OCTOBER 2012 Review of SIT Team expectations and requirements Emphasis on need for academic and/or behavioral data

24. STRAND #5: DATA REVIEW ON-GOING Staff had not been used to reviewing data Data review (specific to particular grades) slowly introduced at grade level meetings (K-5), and Team meetings (6-8) School-wide data reviewed at staff meetings. Staff participated in problem-solving.

25. STRAND #6: COMMUNITY OUTREACH 2011-2012 Formation of a committee of teachers, parents, and administrators Committee purpose was initially to examine why so many students were leaving the school after the 5 th grade Once changes were made, the committee purpose became to unify the school as a K-8 unit Parents became part of the solution

26. ANECDOTAL RESULTS Staff understanding of “below the line” information has led to staff members being proactive when a student appears to be struggling Administration is spending more time working with students before issues occur as opposed to after receiving a Behavior Report Fewer students in the hallway during instructional time Much calmer during transitions Positive comments from parents Parents really did get positive phone calls!