Differentiated Instruction within Universal Supports: The Need to Address Prior Learning History

Tim Lewis, Ph.D.University of Missouri

OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

pbis.org

ContextThe School Environment Must Support

Appropriate Social & Academic Behavior

School-Wide Positive Behavior Support

Response to Intervention

Typical responses to students• Increase monitoring for future problem behavior• Re-review rules & sanctions• Extend continuum of aversive consequences• Improve consistency of use of punishments• Establish “bottom line” • Zero tolerance policies• Security guards, student uniforms, metal detectors, video

cameras• Suspension/expulsion• Exclusionary options (e.g., alternative programs)

However…

• “Punishing” problem behaviors (without a proactive support system) is associated with increases in (a) aggression, (b) vandalism, (c) truancy, and (d) dropping out. (Mayer, 1995, Mayer & Sulzar-Azaroff, 1991, Skiba & Peterson, 1999)

Consider….

If antisocial behavior is not changed by the end of grade 3, it should be treated as a chronic condition much like diabetes. That is, it cannot be cured but managed with the appropriate supports and continuing intervention (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995).

Contributing Factors

• Home– Poverty- Language– Parent/Child interactions

• Community• School• Disability

Contributing Factors - Poverty & Language

Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children

Betty Hart & Todd Risley

Contributing Factors -Parent/Child Social Interactions

• Common Patterns of early learning found in homes of children at-risk for anti-social behavior– Inconsistent discipline– Punitive management– Lack of monitoring

Contributing Factors -Parent/Child Social Interactions

Social Learning• Coercion/Negative Reinforcement (Patterson et

al.)– Present an aversive, remove aversive once the person

complies– “Social skills” to get need met

Contributing Factors

Community (Biglan, 1995)

– lack of pro-social engagement–antisocial network of peers

Contributing Factors

School (Mayer, 1995)

• punitive disciplinary approach• lack of clarity about rules, expectations, and

consequences• lack of staff support• failure to consider and accommodate individual

differences• academic failure

Parent Discipline & Monitoring

Antisocial Behavior

Deviant Peer Group

Social Skills Deficts

Parent Discipline & Monitoring

Parent Discipline & Monitoring

Antisocial Behavior

Delinquency & Antisocial Behavior

Criminal & Antisocial Behavior

Deviant Peer Group

Social Skills Deficts

Social Skills Deficts

Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Grades 7-12 Adult

Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank (1991)

The Good News…

Research reviews indicate that the most effective responses to school violence are (Elliot, Hamburg, & Williams, 1998 Gottfredson, 1997; Lipsey, 1991; 1992; Tolan & Guerra, 1994)

– Social Skills Training– Academic Restructuring– Behavioral Interventions

Universal Strategies: School-Wide

Essential Features• Statement of purpose• Clearly define expected behaviors (Rules)• Procedures for teaching & practicing expected behaviors• Procedures for encouraging expected behaviors• Procedures for discouraging problem behaviors• Procedures for record-keeping and decision making

(swis.org)• Family Awareness and Involvement

Tier II Interventions• Social-Behavioral Concerns

– Social skills

– Self-management

• Academic Concerns– Peer Tutors

– Check in

– Homework club

• Emotional Concerns– Adult mentors

Linked to School-wide

Tier III

• When small group not sufficient

• When problem intense and chronic

• Driven by Functional Behavioral Assessment

• Linked to school-wide system

RtI and SW-PBS

Importance of Effective Instruction (Sanders, 1999)

• The single biggest factor affecting academic growth of any population of youngsters is the effectiveness of the classroom.

• The answer to why children learn well or not isn't race, it isn't poverty, it isn't even per-pupil expenditure at the elementary level.

• The classroom's effect on academic growth dwarfs and nearly renders trivial all these other factors that people have historically worried about.

 

Dinham NLLN 27/08/08 20

The Effects of Quality Teaching:accounting for variance in student achievement

The Effects of Quality Teaching:accounting for variance in student achievement

~5-10%

~50%~5-10%

> 30%

John Hattie ( 2003, 2007)

( Findings from meta-analytic research)( Findings from meta-analytic research)

Creating Effective Classroom Environments

• Insuring ALL faculty and staff engaging in effective instruction and classroom management

• Align resources to challenges– Work within existing organization structure– Raze and rebuild

• Must build an environment that simultaneously supports student and adult behavior

On school reform…

Kauffman states “…attempts to reform education will make little difference until reformers understand that schools must exist as much for teachers as for students. Put another way, schools will be successful in nurturing the intellectual, social, and moral development of children only to the extent that they also nurture such development of teachers.” (1993, p. 7).

• Consistent “core” curriculum implemented school-wide (research-based)

• Core instruction follows effective instructional practices (NWREL.org)

• Core instruction implemented with fidelity

• Consistent, prioritized, and protected time allocated to instruction

• Data decision rules to identify a) those at high risk and b) “non-responders” in a timely manner

Universal Supports: Core Instruction

Early Literacy & Behavior(Kelk & Lewis, 2001)

What are the effects of three instructional conditions a) social skill instruction, b) phonological / phonemic awareness instruction, and c) a combination of social skill instruction and phonological awareness instruction on the reading related and/or social behavior of at-risk kindergarten children?

Early Literary Outcome

Social Skill Outcomes

Phonemic Instruction

+/- -

Social Skill Instruction

- +/-

Phonemic and SS Instruction

+ +

Control Group - -

Targeted / Small Group Supports

Tier II

Important Themes

• Part of a continuum – must link to core curriculum

• Efficient and effective way to identify students (Curriculum Based Measures; DIBELS) through FREQUENT monitoring

• Intervention matched to presenting problem but not highly individualized

Targeted Supports

Intensify Instruction• Increase academic

engaged time• Small group / one:one• Increased opportunities

to respond• Supplemental

curriculum

Alter Instructional Environment

• Rules & routines• Attention signal• Ratio of positive /

negative statements• Efficient transitions• Active supervision

Individual / Intensive

Individual

• When small group/targeted not sufficient

• When data indicate high risk*

• Linked to core curriculum / outcomes

*limited data beyond literacy

Individual/ Intensive

• Targeted assessment (Curriculum Based Measures; DIBELS)

• Instruction targets remediation and/or accommodation

• Environment provides multiple and sustained engagement opportunities

• Monitor outcomes and make necessary adjustments (progress monitoring)

Field Elementary School• High Diversity

– School has 290 students; 50% minority; 20% English Language Learners; 13% special education

• Instructional leader turnover• Poverty

– 79% of students qualify for free and reduced lunches

• Highly transient population

Field Elementary School

+ Teachers and Staff committed to the increasing academic and social successof all students

+ A committed Principal who supported faculty in their efforts to change the way the taught to improve children’s lives

Field Elementary School

• Academic Standing– Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)

• 5% of all students scored proficient in 2005, according to the Missouri Assessment Program. Breakdown by group:

– 0% African American– 18% Caucasian– 0% Students with disabilities– 0% English Language Learners– 7% Free/Reduced Priced Lunch

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success

Field Elementary School

• Literacy• In 2004–05, 44% students required

intensive support for reading and writing

• Social Behavior• In 2003-04 Averaging 10.4 discipline

referrals per day

Field Elementary Literacy Data 04-05

30%

26%

44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004-2005

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark

StructureStructure

Core Reading Core Reading

90 min, 5 days 90 min, 5 days week with:week with:

Intervention Groups 45 min, Intervention Groups 45 min, 4 days week, with:4 days week, with:

(5(5thth day individual focus ) day individual focus )

Tier IIITier IIIIntensive Intensive InterventionIntervention

Classroom Classroom TeacherTeacher

Reading specialists, Sp Ed, ELL, Reading specialists, Sp Ed, ELL, Sp. Lang,Sp. Lang,

K-2 SRA Reading MasteryK-2 SRA Reading Mastery

3-5 Wilson Reading Systems3-5 Wilson Reading Systems

Tier IITier IIStrategic Strategic InterventionIntervention

Classroom Classroom TeacherTeacher

Classroom Teacher Classroom Teacher

Reading Mastery or Soar to Reading Mastery or Soar to SuccessSuccess

Tier ITier IDIBELS benchmarkDIBELS benchmark

Classroom Classroom TeacherTeacher

Classroom Teacher Classroom Teacher

Enrichment based on themes of Enrichment based on themes of core programcore program

Positive Behavior Supports

MU College of Education —140 years of discovery, teaching and

learning

Impact

From 10.4 per day

To 1.6 per day

Impact

• Improved Academic Standing– Annual Yearly Progress

In 2007, 27% of Field’s students scored proficient (up from 5%).

• African American: 0% improved to 16%• Caucasian: 18% improved to 57%• Students with disabilities: 0% improved to 25%• English Language Learners: 0% improved to

27%

Field Literacy Data

30%

26%

44%

40%

27%

33%

40%

29%

31%

51%

25%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

Intensive

Strategic

Benchmark