Innovative Program model Research and Plan

Gary Z. White

EDL 773: Instructional Supervision and Leadership

Alison Cicninelli Ed.D.

April 23rd, 2024

Expansion and Goals of Proposed change

Farwell High School is a small rural school of 339 students. Farwell is also a very poor district as

48% of the students live in households that fall below the poverty line. Living in poverty can

shape the young mind in negative ways and cause issues in school. “Children from poverty

don’t choose to behave differently, but the daily challenges and crisis issues that they

confront cause their brains to have adapted to these conditions, which reflect in their

school performance” (Wages, 2018).

Farwell also has a higher than average rate of students with disabilities, 18% of

Farwell students have been diagnosed with a disability. (Mischooldata.org). Students

with disabilities have unique challenges and need extra supports to be successful in the

classroom. “These children often require more help from their parents than do their

non-disabled peers in order to meet developmental challenges including behaving

(Mischooldata.org)
“appropriately,” and to compensate for the repeated injuries they may suffer to their self

esteem” (Dane, 1990; Palombo, 1995, 2001a, 2001b; Rosenberger, 1988)

(Amerongenm & Mishna, 2004).

With the high rate of poverty and the high rate of students with disabilities it is no

surprise that Farwell has a high rate of suspensions and exclusionary discipline. You

can see from the chart above that Farwell suspended 50 students. While the next

closest school, McBain, only suspended 27 students. The state average for similar

schools is 35 and the state average is 27.

Farwell clearly has inflated exclusionary data. When students are excluded from

the classroom it dramatically affects their academics. It is easy to see how when a

student is removed from class they will miss instruction and struggle academically. In

reality, the detriments of exclusionary discipline run deeper than that.

“(Fabelo et al., 2011) found that 31% of suspended students repeated a grade,

while 10% of suspended students dropped out. Demonstrating that the

school-to-prison pipeline is “more than a metaphor,” Fabelo and his colleagues

(2011) also found that nearly half of students with multiple (11+) suspensions

were in contact with the juvenile justice system. At the same time, exclusionary

practices have also moved students further away from academic achievement:

using a nationally representative sample of students, Jabbari and Johnson

(2020) found that being suspended in high school reduced the chances of taking

advanced math courses, as well as attending college. (Jabbari & Johnson, 2020).
 The administration is aware of the issue with the high rate of exclusionary data. I

learned that the principal and superintendent had a meeting at the RESD about the high

rates of suspension. I discussed this issue with the choice room director, who puts all

behavior data into the system. “After the RESD meeting they just changed how we code

in school suspensions, so it looks like we have less suspensions. (personal notes).

The data backs up the choice room directors statements. The 2019-2020 school

year was the last year before the meeting and there were 321 “IRC” codes.The

pandemic skewed the 2020-2021 data, but half way through the following school year,

the school changed how they code the data. There were 472 “IRC” codes that year.

2022-2023 was the first full year with the code changes. There were 550 total “IRC”

codes. This year at the halfway point of the school year, there were 316 “IRC” codes.

So the data was purposely skewed to look better, but when you look closer at the data it

shows exclusionary data is actually getting worse. In-school suspensions are increasing

every year by a large margin.

The Proposed innovative program

In order to meet the unique challenges of the district Farwell should start a school

wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) program. PBIS programs have

been shown to reduce negative behavior and exclusionary discipline as well as

improving academic outcomes. “A recent meta analysis, including randomized

controlled trials, showed consistent effects of PBIS on decreasing suspensions (Lee &

Gage, 2020). In addition to exclusionary discipline, PBIS has been shown to improve

academic achievement (Kim et al., 2018; Lee & Gage, 2020)” (Mcintosh Et Al, 2021).
 PBIS is rooted in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). The basis of the framework

shows teachers how they can adjust their environment and their interactions with

students to get the desired behaviors they want to see in the classroom.

Some of the strategies that might be implemented in a PBIS classroom include teachers

improving their praise-to-correction ratio. The teacher or school might implement a

token-reward system with a school store. Also one of the core concepts of PBIS is

students need instruction on how to behave, so a PBIS classroom may have

“operationally defined behavior posters,” Which outline step-by-steps instructions for

behaviors and routines.

PBIS also gives teachers a toolbox for dealing with negative behaviors. The core

response for dealing with behaviors is “Behavior specific error correction” This involves

a teacher stopping a student in the moment, stating the problem behavior, Allowing the

student to demonstrate the preferred behavior, then using specific-praise to celebrate

the student making the right choice. Some other strategies for dealing with behaviors in

the classroom include, differential reinforcement, planned ignoring, over-correction, and

timeout reinforcement (Myers et.AL, 2020).

Goals for the change

The number one goal of the implementation of the PBIS model is to reduce

exclusionary discipline. The reduction in exclusionary discipline should lead to an

increased graduation rate, a decrease in failures and higher state testing scores.

The PBIS model is rooted in positive interactions, so there should be a significant

improvement to school culture. It should also build confidence, especially among all of
the new teachers. It will give them a toolkit to deal with negative behaviors in the

classroom. Oftentimes new teachers struggle with discipline. It can be difficult to know

when to choose your battles, when to ignore certain behaviors and when and how to

address other behaviors. The PBIS framework outlines what to do in all of these various

situations.

Of course none of these goals will be possible if we do not implement PBIS with

fidelity. So another goal would be for the data to show we have implemented PBIS with

fidelity. A PBIS coordinator will have to collect observational data showing whether or

not the program is being implemented and whether or not teachers are using the

intervention tools and whether they are using them correctly.

Implementation Plan and example timeline

The implementation plan will be a two year roll out. During the 24-25 school year

the training will begin. All of the Professional developments will be centered around

learning the PBIS framework. A PBIS coordinator will be hired. The coordinator will

begin collecting data on implementation and providing feedback to teachers. A PBIS

leadership team will be formed to help make decisions on the token reward system and

the school store. This will also give the team time to budget and fundraise and secure

donations from the community stakeholders.

The second year we will see full implementation. At the beginning of the 25-26

school year we will have full implementation. The school will use all of its

communication resources to explain the new framework to the various stakeholders.

The administration will hold a town hall meeting explaining the new program. On the first
day of school there will be a PBIS assembly to explain to all of the children what the

new framework will mean to them. All professional developments will be dedicated to

PBIS, The PBIS coordinator will use observational data to determine what the focus of

the professional development will be. The coordinator will track behavior data on the

students. That behavior data will translate into behavior tokens students can spend in

the school store.

At the end of the year the PBIS coordinator will compile the implementation data

and the behavior data to determine if our goals were met. If the data shows we have

not implemented PBIS fully, we cannot necessarily expect to see the reduction in

behaviors and the increase in academics. We would then have to reevaluate our

training and professional developments. If the data shows we have implemented with

fidelity we should hopefully see an improvement in behavior and academics. If we are

implementing with fidelity and seeing improvement the team will continue to collect data

and refine any weaknesses they see in the program.

Evaluation Plan

The first thing the PBIS team is going to measure is implementation. The PBIS

coordinator will do classroom observations. The Coordinator will collect data on such

things as the positive statement-to-correction ratio. Are they using specific praise? Are

they moving around the room and using proximity to manage behaviors? Are the

teachers using behavior specific correction in the moment? Are they instructing

behaviors? Are they using timeouts as an intervention?

 After analyzing for implementation The team will analyze the exclusionary

discipline data. In the first year, assuming our data shows we have implemented the

program with fidelity, we should see a decrease in exclusionary discipline. We should

see a correlation between implementation and a decrease in suspension data. We may

see a slight increase in academics in the first year, and should see the increase in

academics improve over year two and three as the effects of the program take hold and

the school culture improves over time. In year two and three the PBIS team will identify

strengths in the program and weaknesses and determine what tweaks need to be made

to the program.

Literature Review

There is a great deal of research on the effects of PBIS on the school

environment. The concepts that led to PBIS have been researched since the 1970s. In

1997 the National Center on Positive Behavior interventions and supports was created

to provide technical assistance to schools wanting to implement PBIS. There are many

studies that show how PBIS improves behavior and academics. Such as this

Longitudinal study by James et al, “For example, research has shown SWPBIS to be

associated with improved student prosocial behavior (e.g., Bradshaw, Waasdorp, &

Leaf, 2012), healthier functioning of schools (e.g., Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans, Ialongo, &

Leaf, 2008), more positive relationships among staff (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2008), and

fewer suspensions and disciplinary referrals (e.g., Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010).

(James et al., 2019).

 The state of Michigan Board of education has a discipline toolkit that contains the

PBIS framework. The toolkit specifically mentions the harms of exclusionary discipline

and how PBIS is meant to reduce exclusionary discipline. “Numerous studies have

shown that exclusionary discipline often sets the stage for student disenfranchisement,

academic failure, dropout, and potential criminalization. This runs counter to the SBE's

mission and goal that all students graduate prepared for careers, college, and

community” (MDOE, 2016).

There are also numerous studies that show the negative effects of exclusionary

discipline. It is easy to see how being removed from instruction will cause a student to

fall behind,but the dangers of exclusionary discipline are far deeper. Students who get

suspended are more likely to drop out and more likely to end up in the court system. “

Students who are suspended or expelled are often left without proper supervision

and are, thus, likely to fall behind on coursework, disengage academically, and

potentially drop out of school. As argued by most experts, academic

disengagement and school drop-out are strong indicators of eventual

involvement with the juvenile or adult criminal justice systems whereas positive

school engagement and connectedness can be strong protective factors for

youths. (Villalobos & Bohannan, 2017).

So there is a wide body of research spanning several decades on both the

negative impacts of exclusionary discipline, as well as the advantages of having a

schoolwide PBIS program. In fact some of the research overlaps. Many of the articles

on exclusionary discipline actually reference PBIS as a research based approach to

improving exclusionary discipline.

Summary

The negative impact of exclusionary discipline is well researched and

documented. Unfortunately many schools rely on zero tolerance policies and

suspensions as the backbone of their discipline policies. Students who have been

suspended have higher rates of dropping out of high school and higher rates of being

involved with the courts. Unfortunately many schools still use this framework to handle

discipline despite all of the research stating how damaging it is. One of those schools is

Farwell High school. Farwell has a uniquely high rate of exclusionary discipline. So high

in fact, that the administration had a meeting with the CGRESD superintendent about

why Farwells numbers are so high.

Luckily there is a better way. PBIS is a well researched framework that has

shown to be effective in improving behavior and academic performance. The framework

provides The state of Michigan provides a free toolkit with training for any school that

wants to implement a schoolwide PBIS system.

To implement the PBIS system with fidelity, it will take a lot of work. It will require

a lot of data collection and analyzing. There will be some strain on the budget. The

school will have to fund a school store or token reward system of some kind. The costs

for the school store could possibly be offset by donations from community stakeholders.

It also will require at least one new part time position. Although there are some costs

associated with starting a schoolwide PBIS program, the benefits to the student body far

outweigh any monetary costs to starting a program.

 References

Amerongenm, M., & Mishna, F. (2004). Learning disabilities and behavior problems.

Psychoanalytic Social Work, 11(2), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/j032v11n02_03

Jabbari, J., & Johnson, O., Jr. (2020). The collateral damage of in-school suspensions:

A counterfactual analysis of high-suspension schools, math achievement and

college attendance. Urban Education, 58(5), 801–837.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920902256

James, A. G., Noltemeyer, A., Ritchie, R., Palmer, K., & University, M. (2019).

Longitudinal disciplinary and achievement outcomes associated with school‐wide

PBIS implementation level. Psychology in the Schools, 56(9), 1512–1521.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22282

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, Justice Department. (2016,

December 31). Intersection of Juvenile Courts and Exclusionary School

Discipline. [Government]. Justice Department.

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-J32-PURL-gpo86404

Khalifa, muhammed. (n.d.). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the

literature.
McGiveny, K. (2022, October 15). The Federal Government’s Role in ending

exclusionary discipline, by Jessi Dixon. Education Law and Policy Institute.

https://blogs.luc.edu/edlawinstitute/2022/10/15/the-federal-governments-role-in-e

nding-exclusionary-discipline-by-jessi-dixon/

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights seeks information on the

nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline. (n.d.). U.S. Department of

Education.

https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-educations-office-civil-rig

hts-seeks-information-nondiscriminatory-administration-school-discipline

Wages, M. (2018). The achievement gap: A poverty crisis, not an education crisis.

Rowman & Littlefield.

Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012, June 19). California PBIS. California PBIS.

https://pbisca.org/history-of-pbis