School-Wide Barriers to Improving Student Behavior

 

Zach is a student in all general education classes receiving special education services in an area high school where a dress code/uniform policy is in place. Students are not allowed to wear hoodies, caps, or any type of head covering at school.  Below is a list of Zach's disciplinary placements and the offense for each placement. 

 

 

Which offenses could be avoided if Zach's teachers and administrators identified a pattern after the second offense of wearing a hoodie or a cap?  At least offenses #3 and #5 could have been avoided if the staff supporting Zach on a daily basis reviewed and revised his Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) to include a significant adult to check in when Zach arrives to school to ensure he does not have a hoodie or a cap in his possession. If he does, it could be removed and returned at the end of the day.  What are other alternatives that could be implemented to support Zach in following the rules and expectations without repeated exclusionary discipline that is not changing his behavior?

 

Allie is a student receiving special education services, primarily in general education classes, with one class in the resource setting, at a different area high school where there is no uniform policy.  A dress code with details of the length of skirts/shorts is included, along with several other dress code policies for all students.  Allie is also an Economically Disadvantaged student whose single mother works two jobs and is not home when Allie leaves for school, nor is she available to bring dress code-appropriate clothing to the school during the day.

 

 

Which offenses could be avoided if Allie's teachers and administrators reviewed these conduct code violations to determine how they could best support Allie?  Does our tardy policy included in our code of conduct possibly need review?  Do we allow students to carry on with their day who have someone to bring them something else to wear?  How could we address dress code violations other than exclusionary discipline? 

 

School-wide disciplinary policies, practices, and procedures are locally developed rules and plans by school leaders regarding student misbehavior and its resulting consequences and can sometimes become barriers to improving student behavior.  Exclusionary Discipline (ED) involves the removal of a student from a regular school arrangement for behavioral reasons (Zinsser et al., 2022).  ED may include time out, office referrals, detention, In-School Suspension (ISS), Out-of-School Suspension (OSS), placement in a disciplinary alternative education program (DAEP), and expulsion.  These are the primary options available to school administrators as consequences for student misbehavior.  Exclusionary discipline rarely includes supports and practices to teach and coach students on strategies and methods to improve or change their behavior. 

In 2014, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) implemented a new system for accountability of the outcomes of students in special populations in a framework known as Results-Driven Accountability (RDA).  RDA is the source of annual data reporting in the state of Texas for schools to identify student needs in special populations.  Specifically, the academic achievement, disability identification, placement, and discipline of students receiving special education services are reported and analyzed annually through RDA.

 

The ultimate purpose of Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) for school improvement is to guide school district and campus leadership teams to analyze the data to evaluate student academic and disciplinary outcomes for students in special populations and to identify and implement effective, research-based programs and practices for improvement.  When RDA data is analyzed, and school-wide improvement efforts are implemented, it results in a positive impact for all students in the school.  The annual RDA analysis consists of eighteen indicators, five of which directly report student placements in exclusionary discipline settings within each Local Education Agency (LEA).  All five disciplinary placement indicators are analyzed by student race/ethnicity, and a disproportionate analysis is conducted to identify any areas of significant disproportionality.  School leaders can identify areas of need within the school-wide discipline policies, procedures, and practices through analysis of RDA and locally maintained disciplinary reports. 

 

Both of the student case studies above impact Results-Driven Accountability in multiple indicators.  Zach is impacting RDA for Indicator #16 (ISS 10 days) and for Indicator #18 (SpEd Total Disciplinary Placements).  He factors in as one student for ISS placements on Indicator #16 and as four times placed for Indicator #18.  Allie impacts Indicators #16 and #18.  She factors in as one student for Indicator #16 and four times placed for Indicator #18.  These examples are not all about how the students impact RDA and implementing strategies to improve the numbers and data only.  RDA data should be analyzed to help school leaders identify strategies to support and help our students in addition to potential exclusionary discipline with no support or coaching to help improve behavior.

 

Exclusionary discipline (ED) is intended to be a form of behavioral punishment.  The behavioral definition of punishment is the addition or removal of a stimulus following a behavior that decreases the likelihood of that behavior occurring again in the future (Cooper et al., 2019).

ED is expected to be aversive to students by removing access to social interactions and preferred activities while maintaining non-preferred activities such as schoolwork.  When ED is assigned after the occurrence of inappropriate behavior, the hope is that it will decrease the likelihood of future occurrences of the behavior.  Unfortunately, sometimes the consequence is not as effective as intended, and students may engage in chronic misbehavior that repeatedly lands them back in ED. 

ED policies are practiced widely in schools impacting culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities despite being associated with extremely poor outcomes (Simmons-Reed & Cartledge, 2014).  Research suggests that the excessive use of ED in public schools negatively impacts school climate and educational opportunity, consequently increasing the potential for student drop-out and interaction with the juvenile justice system (Skiba et al., 2014).  

There are various reasons why ED may not yield decreased undesired behavior: decreased social and academic demands, increased access to preferred items and activities, reduced student-to-teacher ratio, and increased academic support.  The variables that make ED ineffective are different for each student.  One study conducted in 2002 found that there are generally three types of students in DAEPs (Coleman, 2002).  One type is students who want to be on their regular campus and are one-time offenders.  These students do not engage in the same behavior again, and DAEP is an effective consequence.  Another type of student identified is students who are more successful in and prefer the DAEP setting for various reasons, such as a small group setting or more structure.  These students often have many DAEP assignments per school year.  Finally, the study found that some students avoid attending school in either location.  These students are more likely to drop out, be expelled, or interact with the justice system.

 

One potential factor leaving ED ineffective is the decrease in non-preferred social interactions.  For some students, the day-to-day social requirements and interactions in their regular school environment can be overwhelming, stressful, or even harmful (i.e., bullying).  When these non-preferred social interactions are removed due to moving to an ED placement, the student may feel more comfortable and safe, resulting in motivation to remain in the ED placement.  Another factor that could play a role in the reduced effectiveness of ED is reduced demands or increased academic support in ED placement.  ED placements often involve the reduction or complete removal of academic work, which creates a disadvantage for students.  In cases where academic work still exists, a reduced student-to-teacher ratio usually results in increased academic support.  These variables could also increase a student's motivation to remain in or return to the ED placement.  A third element that could impact ED effectiveness is increased access to preferred items and activities.  Especially in the case of Out-of-School suspension (OSS), there may be free access to electronics, toys, and other fun activities.  This access could increase motivation to remain in or return to the ED placement.  In these cases, ED functions as a reinforcer instead of a punisher, increasing the likelihood of a reoccurrence of behavior.  Other variables could play a role in students' chronic recurrence of conduct code violations, such as trauma, impulsivity, and social or communication skill deficits. 

Despite its harmful impacts and sometimes ineffectiveness, ED remains the primary strategy for reducing unwanted behavior in public schools.  One factor that plays an obvious role in the continued use of ED is the continued occurrence of unwanted student behavior.  If conduct code violations no longer occurred, ED would not be necessary.  However, many districts are experiencing a rise in conduct code violations.  This rise could be related to student factors such as their home environment, trauma, skill deficits, and disability.  Staff-related factors may also contribute to the continued use of ED.  A negative school culture, lack of training, and lack of support from the administration could all lead to selecting ED as a behavior change method over more evidence-based practices.  Finally, the school system may involve factors contributing to the continued use of ED.  These could include an inexistent or poor PBIS System, a rigid Student Code of Conduct, extreme DAEP rules, and zero-tolerance policies. 

 

Commonly, school disciplinary practices include zero-tolerance policies resulting in automatic expulsion or placement in some type of exclusionary discipline assignment such as in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, or the District Alternative Education Program (DAEP).  In 1994 the Gun-Free Schools Act was passed in which federal policy adopted a zero-tolerance approach for firearms, requiring expulsion for one year for possession on school grounds.  Many states extended the federal policy in an effort to maintain control by including less serious violations, including fighting, off-campus behavior, and other less serious behaviors (Skiba & Peterson, 2000).  School administrators justify using exclusionary practices to maintain order and control based on several popular assumptions: (a) school violence is on the rise, (b) zero-tolerance deters students from acting out, (c) zero-tolerance provides students with a consistent message regarding expectations and consequences, (d) removing disruptive students creates a conducive learning environment for others, and (e) zero- tolerance is supported by students, parents, and people in the community (Simmons-Reed & Cartledge, 2014 as cited in APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Gregory, Skiba & Noguera, 2010; Krezmien et al., 2006; Noguera, 2003).  Currently, many school leaders implement zero-tolerance policies and practices to address the most current social issues among youth while in attendance at school rather than providing programs and education to prevent harmful choices and behaviors. 

No interventions are foolproof.  Creating a public school environment devoid of conduct code violations is impossible.  In an attempt to reduce formal disciplinary placements, many school leaders have turned to informal exclusionary discipline practices such as time out, refocus rooms, and detention.  However, a solid Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) for student behavior and mental health that includes evidence-based systems has successfully improved school-wide ED practices. TEA's TIER Project provides training on multiple pathways for MTSS implementation in Texas Local Education Agencies (About TIER). 

 

A solid PBIS plan has been found to increase positive behaviors in the classroom, decreasing office referrals and subsequently decreasing the use of ED (McNeill et al., 2016).  PBIS is a preventative approach to reducing student conduct code violations.  The three-tiered framework includes evidence-based behavior practices, data collection for progress monitoring, effective systems and teams, and equitable outcomes across all tiers.  At Tier 1, these key elements are used universally in all classrooms and locations on campus, including ED settings.  The systematic application of specific evidence-based practices enables approximately 80% of students to be successful.  Tier 2 practices involve more intensive behavior support strategies such as increased positive adult interactions and small group skills training.  These targeted interventions are reserved for approximately 20% of students.  Finally, Tier 3 interventions involve assessing underlying issues and the functions of challenging behaviors.  Individualized behavior interventions and wrap-around supports may be necessary to support the 3-5% of students who exhaust previous tiers (What is PBIS?).

 

 

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) has developed a framework for including evidence-based social-emotional learning in public schools.  Various social-emotional learning curricula exist that align with the CASEL framework.  SEL can also be applied on a three-tiered continuum of preventative and responsive mental health practices.  Preventative (Tier 1) practices involve regular SEL activities such as daily lessons on self-awareness, empathy, managing emotions, and maintaining relationships (What is the CASEL Framework?  2023).  Tiers 2 and 3 may involve more intensive teaching for students at risk for or struggling with mental health concerns.  Strategies such as social skills training and counseling may be provided in these tiers at increasing intensities. 

 

Restorative practices focus on repairing damaged relationships and restoring peace among those involved in the incident.  Restorative practices is not a curriculum but an approach that includes many different evidence-based strategies that are both preventative and responsive and can be applied on a three-tiered continuum, similar to PBIS.  Preventative interventions focus on building community, teaching skills, and promoting openness.  While responsive (Tiers 2 and 3) strategies involve intentional activities designed to understand the incident's root cause, repair harm caused by the incident, and attempt to teach skills to prevent further incidents (Kervick et al., 2019).  

School leaders who review and analyze the current code of conduct and disciplinary practices may identify zero-tolerance policies and practices in place that may not be effective or necessary.  Data analysis of disciplinary placements related to zero-tolerance policies allows school leaders to identify student needs beyond consequences for behavior. 

When alternative educational placements are a necessary form of discipline, certain supportive practices can reduce the negative impacts on the student and improve student outcomes.  The National Alternative Education Association (NAEA) produced a rubric containing fifteen research-based approaches for effective AEPs. These include a positive climate, transition planning, counseling, mental health support, qualified staffing and training, and parent/guardian involvement (Exemplary practices, 2023).  Each practice focuses on understanding the root cause of challenging behavior, intervening on that root cause, and motivating students to engage in socially appropriate behaviors.  Each of these elements is often absent in ED settings. 

 

The general ineffectiveness and adverse outcomes stemming from exclusionary discipline have spurred educational policy requiring tracking its use.  Results-Driven Accountability measures the disproportionate use of exclusionary discipline across race and ethnicity.  Applying a multi-tiered system of support that focuses on preventing academic, behavioral, and emotional failure in schools offers a way to limit the use of exclusionary discipline.  MTSS systems are tailored to meet the needs of the school population, further preventing disproportionality in the use of ED.  A positive school climate that focuses on meeting students' individual needs, establishing and restoring relationships, and promoting prosocial behaviors further reduces the need for ED in the school setting. 

---