Enhancing Equity through Effective District & School Policies

Culturally Responsive Systems Strand

Kent McIntosh, University of Oregon

Cayce McCamish, NC Dept. of Public Inst.

Seena Skelton, Great Lakes Equity Center

Handouts:http://www.pbis.org

Who are we?Kent McIntoshCayce McCamishSeena Skelton

Who are you?Repeat offenders?Roles?PBIS implementation experience?

Who are we?

1. Research regarding effective and ineffective components of policies to reduce disproportionality

Kent

2. Guidance and tools for assessing quality of existing policies

Cayce Seena

Overview

Handouts: http://www.pbis.org

A 5-point

Intervention to Enhance Equity in School Discipline

http://www.pbis.org/school/equity-pbis

Enhancing student voice

1. Use effective instruction to reduce the achievement gap

2. Implement SWPBIS to build a foundation of prevention

3. Collect, use, and report disaggregated student discipline data

4. Develop policies with accountability for disciplinary equity

5. Teach neutralizing routines for vulnerable decision points

PBIS Forum Strand:Culturally Responsive Systems

A10

B9C8RT

Supporting students who identify as LGBTQ C9

D7

D8

E7

Could reduce effects of explicit bias Could enable implementation of other

aspects of equity interventions Could reduce use of discriminatory

practices

How could policy work fit in to enhancing equity?

Regardless of intent…Policies such as zero tolerance and three-

strikes policies are disproportionately applied to students of color (Losen & Skiba, 2010)

Suspension, expulsion, and other exclusionary practices have been shown to cause harm (Am. Academy of Pediatrics, 2013)

This disproportionate harm is what makes the policy discriminatory

How are “race-neutral” policies discriminatory?

The teachers, administrators and staff of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) believe in the equal worth and dignity of all students and are committed to educate all students to their maximum potential.

Policy Example:Equitable Mission Statements

Literature Review: Elements of Effective Policies (Canizal Delabra, McIntosh, & Nese, 2014)

Ineffective Limited Research Effective ✖ General guidance on equity - Teacher-student ethnic match

(i.e., hiring preferences) ✔ Removal of zero tolerance

policies or suspensions for non-violent offenses

✖Including commitment to equity in mission statement

- Clear, objective discipline procedures (e.g., ODR definitions, staff vs. office-managed behavior)

✔ Regular sharing of disproportionality data with managers/administrators and accountability for decisions

✖ One-time cultural sensitivity/diversity trainings

- Adoption of proactive, positive instructional approach with students

✔ Installation of ongoing processes for assessing and addressing inequities (e.g., team charged with taking action and reporting data to administrators)

✖ Zero tolerance policies - Guidance to consider academic skills in school discipline decisions

The Board directs the Superintendent to develop action plans with clear accountability and metrics, and including prioritizing staffing and budget allocations, which will result in measurable results on a yearly basis towards achieving the above goals. Such action plans shall identify specific staff leads on all key work, and include clear procedures for district schools and staff. The Superintendent will present the Board with a plan to implement goals A through F within three months of adoption of this policy. Thereafter, the Superintendent will report on progress towards these goals at least twice a year, and will provide the Board with updated action plans each year.

Policy Example:Processes with Accountability

Enacting policies that nobody knows about Enacting policies that don’t change

practice Policies without accountability for

implementation

What does not work in policy

Include a Specific Commitment to Equity Create mission statements that include equity Enact hiring preferences for equitable discipline

Install Effective Practices Require clear, objective school discipline procedures Support implementation of proactive, positive

approaches to discipline Replace exclusionary practices w/ instructional ones

Create Accountability for Efforts Create teams and procedures to enhance equity Share disproportionality data regularly Build equity outcomes into evaluations

Equity Policy Recommendations

Cayce McCamish, Ph.D. Data and Evaluation Consultant

Behavioral Support Section, NC DPI

Disciplinary Disproportionality and

Policy:Evaluation and Modification

Revised Model for Evaluating Disciplinary Disproportionality

Policy Disciplinary Practices

Cultural/Racial Beliefs Relationships

Data Practices

(Revised model from Hill-Collins, 2009; McCamish, 2012)

Newton, J.S., Todd, A.W., Algozzine, K, Horner, R.H. & Algozzine, B. (2009).

Structural Disciplinary

Cultural Interpersonal

Policies

• Develop a problem solving team.

• Include key stakeholders.

Problem solving questions

Does this LEA have any local policies or procedures that might be contributing to increased numbers of OSS/ISS? (For example, omission of certain categories of behavioral offenses in the policy, such as “disruptive behavior.”)

Are district and school policies (for all schools contributing to disproportionality) clear and consistent (ex. Use the same language for describing behaviors, have clear definitions, examples, and consequences)?

Does the data indicate that the use of homebound, alternative placements, alternative settings, or alternatives to suspension is contributing to the disproportionality?

How do policies outline expectations for addressing repeat offenses?

District Disciplinary Policy Staff handbook Student Code of Conduct for the

school (if different from district policy) Data management system language

should align

Policies

Other factors to consider:

Data entry Homebound Alternative school Discipline for EC

students In-school suspension

referral process (teacher administered)

www.comprose.com

Consider process and procedure

• Guidelines,Standards, official position, laws• “What to do”• Should be

connected

Policy

• High level view

• “How to”• How does this

happen?

Process

• Detailed or step by step

• “How to”• Who does what

by when?

Procedure

Excel spreadsheet Examines clarity and

consistency within and across policies

Simple rating Evaluate categories of

behavior Document proposed changes

Policy crosswalkRatings:0= not listed1= Listed

2= Has 2 factors. (Listed and consequences OR Listed and defined)3= Has 3 factors. (Listed, defined and consequences OR Listed, defined and examples)

4= Has 4 factors. (Listed, defined, consequences and examples)

Offense Grades 9-12 Grades 6-8 Grades K-5

Disorderly Conduct involving three ormore persons, disruption of schoolactivities by verbal, written or symbolicspeech, i.e. sit-ins, boycotts, disruptivetalking in class

3-10 days OSS, PoliceInvolvement, *AngerManagement

1-10 days OSS, PoliceInvolvement, *AngerManagement

0-10 days OSS, PoliceInvolvement (Option) *AngerManagement

3 BROAD CATEGORIES

District Code of Conduct (start here)

How to startViolent Non-Violent Other

Dress code

BullyingAssault with a weapon

GS 115C-12(21) requires the SBE “to compile an annual report on acts of violence in the public schools.” The SBE has defined 16 criminal acts that are to be included in its annual report. Nine of the 16 are considered dangerous and violent.

The nine dangerous and violent acts are:• Homicide• Assault resulting in serious bodily injury• Assault involving the use of a weapon• Rape• Sexual offense• Sexual assault• Kidnapping• Robbery with a dangerous weapon• Taking indecent liberties with a minor

The other seven acts included in this report are:• Assault on school personnel• Bomb threat• Burning of a school building• Possession of alcoholic beverage• Possession of controlled substance in violation of law• Possession of a firearm or powerful explosive• Possession of a weapon

Categories of behavior- example

Violent/ Criminal- These are behaviors listed above.

Non-violent- These are behaviors that are not violent AND DO NOT INCLUDE OTHERS.

Other- These are behaviors that are not violent, but DO INVOLVE OTHERS.

Steps: 1. List all behaviors in district

policy in the appropriate row2. Develop table of types of

behaviors3. Identify type of behavior for

each behavior listed in policy in top row

3 BROAD CATEGORIES

District Code of Conduct (start here)

Rating of entries

Staff Handbook

Rating of entries

Student Handbook

Rating of entries

Data Management System

Rating of entries

Comments:

Sum 4/13

ExampleNon-Violent

Disruptive

Disrupting class

1

Disruption

1

Language inconsistency

2

Steps: 1. List behaviors in District

Code of Conduct2. List type of behavior3. Rate the entry in the

policy4. Continue with additional

policies (list and then rate)

5. List and rate the entry for the data management system

6. Document comments and key points for the revision process

7. Review total values for top behaviors related to disproportionality and identify areas of need

3 BROAD CATEGORIES NON-VIOLENT OTHER OTHER NON-VIOLENT OTHERDistrict Code of Conduct Categories Disruptive language

gross disrespect Dress code

Rating of entries 2 3 3 3 0

School Student Handbook

Disrupting classroom instruction

Dress code; violation of dress code

Verbal abuse of staff

memberRating of entries 2 0 0 4 2

Data Collection System Behavioral Descriptions

42 UB: Disruptive behavior

31 UB: Dress code violation

32 UB: Inappropriate language/disrespect; 61 UB: Disrespect of faculty/staff

Rating of entries 1 0 0 1 15 3 3 8 3

Middle School Example

9 points possible

Brief Summary• Disruptive- not defined• Language/disrespect/ verbal

abuse need clarification• Fighting/affray/physical

aggression/horseplay need clarification

• Most clearly defined was Dress code, attendance, tardies

• Some behaviors are clearly defined but not consistently implemented (cell phone)

• 93 different behaviors• Need continuum of severity

and consequences

Disrespectful Behavior - Verbal and non-verbal communication (ex. tone, volume or physical gestures) that is seen as offensive, argumentative or rude, because of either what is being said or how it is being communicated.

Minor MajorExamples- repeating a behavior that someone has told you is disrespectful, making insulting comments, mocking, talking back, name-calling, gestures

Examples- comments, talking back and name-calling that include cursing

Responses: Classroom consequence and documentation

Responses: Office referral (attach minor incident documentation)

School Actions• Defining top problem behaviors with input from the whole school• Define those behaviors in school policies and developing a process for teaching

students and staff• Work on horseplay, fighting, physical aggression because of changes in data this

year• Clarify and clearly document procedure for administering teacher consequences

(Tiered Intervention Plan)• Administrators developed clear procedures for responding to office referrals

(documentation required)

District Code of Conduct (start here)

Dress Code Violation

Bus Misconduct

Use (smoking, dipping) or possession of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, on school property or at a school event

Using profane, obscene, lewd, vulgar or indecent speech

Disrespectful conduct toward school personnel

Hitting, kicking, pushing or punching another student or similar misbehavior which does not cause a serious injury

Undisciplined: habitual violation of school rules, repeated failure to comply with staff directives or other repeated oppositional behavior that is disruptive

Rating of entries 3 2 4 2 2 3 2

Notes: Add consequence continuum for all behaviors; how to ensure consistency across district with how schools define major/minor; minor violations vs serious violations

defines by negative example, examples not clear

no definition; no examples; Consider major/minor definitions and consequences; coding clarification about when to use this category vs listing specific bx and then bus as location

some behaviors have all three offenses in one level and others don't

What do the terms mean? Need to define?

need to define; directed toward staff- other bx descriptors for bx directed toward peers; list examples

where is the line between this an horseplay; is this physical aggression;

disruptive behavior is not listed in the policy; examples are vague; need to define; maybe disruptive is not the same thing as undisciplined; undisciplined seems to be about repeat offenses;

District Example

Brief Summary• Disruptive- not listed in the

policy• More than 94 different behaviors• Need continuum of intensity of

behavior (major and minor)• Consequences arbitrary and

inappropriate in some cases• Inconsistencies between

language in policy and data management system

• Need to establish data procedures to ensure consistency across schools

• No clarification about repeat offenses

Revise district disciplinary policy (stakeholder input) Align with data management system Include major/minor behaviors Address repeat offenders Include all behaviors associated with disproportionality Provide definitions, examples, range consequences, etc.

Develop procedure for addressing discipline for EC students

Develop a referral process and procedures for Homebound and alternative school placement

Develop data procedures for all schools

District Actions

The behaviors most associated with disciplinary disproportionality tend to be less well defined in policy and inconsistently implemented/applied

Revision work can be focused and prioritized based on ratings District changes can help reduce the work that would need to be

done at the school level and ensure consistency across schools Policies need to be supported by processes and procedures All policies and policy revisions should be supported with professional

development Include appropriate stakeholders in the revision process Ensure appropriate approval On-going review

Tool: Policy Procedure Action Form

Lessons Learned

For more information:

Cayce.mccamish@dpi.nc.gov

Questions?

Hill-Collins, P. (2009). Another kind of public education: Race, schools, the media, and democratic possibilities. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

McCamish, C. (2012). Disciplinary Disproportionality and the Organization of Power. Retrieved from: http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/listing.aspx?id=9436.

Newton, J.S., Todd, A.W., Algozzine, K, Horner, R.H. & Algozzine, B. (2009). The Team Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) Training Manual. Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon unpublished training manual.

Rausch, M., & Skiba, R. (2004). Disproportionality in school discipline among minority students in Indiana: Description and analysis. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.

Skiba, R., Michael, R., & Nardo, A. (2000). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Policy Research Report #SRS1, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Reece Peterson. Retrieved from http://www.iub.edu/~safeschl/cod.pdf

Skiba, R., Michael, R., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342.

Skiba, R., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3), 295–315.

Skiba, R., Reynolds, C. R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J. C., and Garcia-Vazquez, E.

(2006). Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools?: An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations. A Report by the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. American Psychological Association.

Wu, S., Pink, W., Crain, R., & Moles, O. (1982). Student suspension: A critical reappraisal. The Urban Review, 14, 245–303.

www.comprose.com

References

A Process and Tool for Engaging in a

Critical Reflection on Policy

Seena M. Skelton, Ph.D. Great Lakes Equity Center

Great Lakes Equity Center

One of the ten regional EACs funded by the U.S. Department of Education under Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Great Lakes Equity Center provides assistance to state education agencies and public school districts in the areas of race, gender, and national origin equity.

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Equity-oriented learning organizations engaged in systems improvement efforts examine the extent to which patterns of beliefs and practices, and established policies, procedures and structures contribute to the marginalization of specific groups of students and their families and engage in continuous improvement efforts to redress these inequities by …

• Engaging multiple stakeholders in dialogue about race, equity and education

• Utilizing critical collaborative inquiry in the examination of policies, practices, structures

• Engaging in equity-oriented strategic planning to advance equity in policy, practices and structures towards creating safe and inclusive high quality learning environments

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Systemic Change Components

Policy

People

Practice

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Enacting transformative systemic change through addressing policy as practice

Interpretations and responses

to policy-as-written

Unwritten patterns of

practice

Policy-as-

practice

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Cultural Implications: Policy & PracticeSchools are, among many other things, cultural institutions: they have norms and values in place that affect how people are treated and how they treat one another.

Policies—at the local, state and federal levels--shape practices and encompass all established decision-making procedures, expectations of staff performance and responsibilities, and staff appraisals and professional development opportunities.

As with school norms, policies and practices affecting staff tend to reflect the values of the people who have created them.

Enhancing Student Achievement: A Framework for School Improvement

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Policy Appropriation: Contextualizing policy processes is important

Teachers are an integral part of the process of policy appropriations that occur within and across policy levels (state, district, school, and teacher).

The interpretations of the meaning of the policy for practice vary according to policy level (e.g. intent of the law, district administrator's interpretation, school-based interpretations), often leading to contradictory discourses.

The teachers have to (be able to) negotiate often contradictory policy discourses in their daily practices.

Contextualizing policy processes is important; teachers' views are shaped by their own beliefs but also by the way the district conceptualizes and interpret policy.

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

de Jong, Ester J. (2008)Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, v40 n4 p350-370 Nov 2000

Contextualizing Policy

Research suggests that one of the best ways for schools to respond to and manage the multiple, and sometimes conflicting demands of various policies is through the creation and maintenance of formal decision-making structures to examine and develop goals and strategies for designing and/or implementing policies. Not only will participants in these decision-making bodies be more likely to “own” the outcomes of enacted policies, but they will also be more likely to understand how the problems and solutions that policies address are socially constructed. (Honig & Hatch, 2004).

Purpose and rationale

To provide a process and tool by which stakeholders can engage in critical examination of and reflection on the policies that shape and inform daily practices and thereby ensure that policy and practice are consistent with the larger goals of the community, including a focus on equity and social justice.

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Tool Design

External consultant conducted independent review of tool findings

Individual policy study of district policies

Feedback incorporated, second draft developed and reviewed by panel. Finalized for piloting

Initial draft submit for panel review

Key elements of equitable policy identified from education and social policy literature

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Tool Validation ProcessPanel review

District Application by

Developers

External users

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

• Review Domain

• Rating

• Assessment

• Finding

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Policy Review Domains

Legal

Research-Based

Responsive to Context

Efficient

Educative

Accountable

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Critical Collaborative Inquiry: A Process for review

Engaging and preparing stakeholders

Individual policy review using tool

Group discussion & preliminary findings review

Critical reflection discussion

Findings and recommendations

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Tool Applications

SEA Level Twelve Office-based

Teams SEA Level

Model Policy on Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion

LEA Level Bullying Prohibition Policy

Harassment, Violence and Discrimination Policy

Key Findings for Tool Users

Practical

Applicatio

ns

• Instrument may play catalytic role:• Focusing conversations• (Re)shaping conversations and practice• Shifting interaction between the policy

implementers and the policy makers• Drawing attention to the need for policy

implementers to be proactive regarding generation of education mandates

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Implications

Catalytic efficacy of the tool lends it to expanded use across other domains

Emergent activities within offices and cross-office hold potential to impact practice

When intentionally introduced, tools could lead to enhance existing structures as well as creation of emergent structures that manifest newer consciousness

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

ReferencesArtiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2007). Beyond convictions: Interrogating culture, history, and power in inclusive education.

Language Arts, 84, 351-358

de Jong, Ester J. (2008). Contextualizing Policy Appropriation: Teachers’ Perspectives, Local Responses, and English-only Ballot Initiatives. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 40, 4 350-370

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury.

King, K. A., Maxcy, B.D., Macey, E., and Cox, A (2014). A Critical Practice Analysis of Response to Intervention Appropriation in an Urban School. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 5, 287–299

King, K. A., Kozleski, E. B., Gonzales, J., & Capulo, K. (2009). Inclusive education for equity. Professional Learning Module Series. Equity Alliance at ASU. Tempe, AZ.

Klinger, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Duran, G. Z., & Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38). Retrieved June 2, 2014 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/143

Kozleski, E. B., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2013). Ability, equity, and culture: Sustaining inclusive urban education reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kozleski, E.B. & Waitoller, F.R. (2010) Teacher learning for inclusive education: Understanding teaching as a cultural and political practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 655-666.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Great Lakes Equity Center 2014

Contact Information

Kent McIntoshSpecial Education Program

1235 University of Oregon

Eugene, OR 97403

kentm@uoregon.edu

Handouts: http://kentmcintosh.wordpress.com

Cannon Beach, Oregon © GoPictures, 2010

American Academy of Pediatrics Council on School Health. (2013). Policy statement: Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131, e1000-e1007. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3932

Canizal Delabra, A., McIntosh, K., & Nese, R. N. T. (2014, August). Recommended features of school district equity policies to decrease racial disproportionality in discipline practices. Selected poster presentation at the American Psychological Association Annual Conference, Washington, DC.

Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center.

McIntosh, K., Girvan, E. J., Horner, R. H., Smolkowski, K., & Sugai, G. (2014). Recommendations for addressing discipline disproportionality in education. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

References