Special Education and the Social Dynamics of Aggression in Rural Schools

Tom Farmer Abby HoffmanCollege of Education School of EducationPennsylvania State University University of North Carolina National Research Center on Rural Education Support

Collaborators Matt IrvinDylan RobertsonDavid Estell Man-Chi LeungKim Dadisman Allen Murray Jana Thompson Amity CrowtherBryan Hutchins

Funding Support

Centers for Disease Control and Injury Prevention

Office of Special Education Programs

Institute for Education SciencesSocial & Character Development ProgramNational Research Center on Rural Education Support

Datasets Social Integration Study – Chicago & Rural NC

991 3rd – 6th graders (516 G) 53% W; 40% AA; 7% L

Developmental Pathways of Rural African American Early Adolescents 406 5th and 6th graders followed throughg high school (244 G) 100%

African American

Project REAL – Rural Appalachian Mountains 315 5th Graders (170 G) 95% White; 5% African American

Project BEST – Rural Coastal Plains and Metropolitan Area in NC 622 5th graders (332 g) 55% European American, 41% African American,

& 4% other

Social & Character Development SACD – Rural NC 534 2nd Graders (289 G) 57% W; 30% AA; 10% L; & 7% NA

Goals and Aims

Examine the conceptual foundations of the social relations of rural special education students

Summarize our research on classroom social dynamics

Summarize our research on the bullying involvement of rural students with or at-risk of mild disabilities

Discuss implications for social interventions to

support students with mild disabilities in rural schools

Conceptual Foundations of the Social Relations of Rural Special Education Students Dominant view in the special education literature is that

students with mild disabilities have social skill deficits and are rejected by nondisabled peers

Alternative view is that while some special education students are socially marginalized, there is considerable variability in their social competence and peer relations

Some students with or at-risk of mild disabilities are well integrated into their classroom social structures, are members of popular peer groups, and have prominent social roles

Why the Confusion?

Peer Rejection vs. Social Isolation --Peer rejection refers to how well students are liked --Social isolation refers to not associating with peers --Most rejected youth are members of peer groups

Sociometric Popularity vs. Perceived Popularity --Sociometrically popular youth are well liked by peers--Perceived popular youth are viewed by peers as “popular”

--Many perceived popular youth are not well liked

Teachers’ views of peer relations tend to correspond with perceived popularity

Subtypes of Aggressive Youth There are two types of aggressive

children and adolescents

Tough – teacher rated popular & aggressive

Troubled – teacher rated unpopular & aggressive

Characteristics of Tough and Troubled Boys

Tough (about 10-15% of boys) Factor ______ Aggression ++Academic Popularity +Affiliative +Olympian ++Internalizing -

Troubled (about 12-20% of boys)

Factor ____Aggression ++Academic -Popularity -Affiliative --Olympian -Internalizing +

Interpersonal Competence Scale Teacher (ICS-T) Ratings

Girls’ Aggressive Subtypes

Typically there tends to be only one high aggressive cluster for girls and it is not associated with high popularity or social prominence (may be due to measures focusing on physical and not social aggression)

The exceptions are the rural 2nd grade sample (the girl profiles for Tough and Troubled are similar to those generally found for boys) and the middle school rural African American girls (social aggression was measured)

Two Social Worlds of Aggression in School Peer relations of “Tough” and “Troubled” youth

demarcate distinct social worlds of aggression in school

--Consistent with common conceptions, Troubled children appear to be socially marginalized

--However, Tough children appear to be socially prominent, well integrated into popular and socially central peer groups, and influential in the social structure even though they may not be well liked (viewed as cool by a broad range of peers)

Why Two Social Worlds of Aggression? Classroom Social Dynamics As children and youth organize their social

worlds there is a tendency for natural social dynamics that support conflict and aggression

--Social Synchrony --Distinct peer groups (similarity, complementary) --Hierarchical social structures

Strategies Youth use to Promote their Social positions and Control of Resources Prosocial

Coercive --Physical aggression

--Social aggression

--Bullying

**The most prominent and influential students tend to use both prosocial and coercive strategies

Peer Relations of Youth Involved in Bullying Bullies

Larger social networks, leaders of peer groups, disliked but socially prominent, unlikely to be victimized by others

Bully/Victims Associate with other bully/victims, many troubled youth fit this category

Victims Associate with marginalized peers, more likely to be neglected

Social Relations of Students with or at-risk of High Incidence Disabilities Many youth with or at-risk of disabilities fit in Tough,

Troubled, and non-aggressive high risk configurations

More likely to associate with aggressive and unpopular peers

More likely to be socially isolated (about 20%)

Tend to view positive peers very favorable except for aggressive students with or at-risk of disabilities who think “Tough” peers are cool

Bullying Involvement of Students with or at-risk of High Incidence Disabilities Students with high incidence disabilities more

likely to be perceived as being bullies by both teachers and peers

Teachers tend to rate students with high incidence disabilities higher for being bullied by peers

Students with high incidence disabilities who have aggressive and popular associates have more peer nominations for bullying than all others

Implications for Intervention: Supporting the Transition to Middle School in Appalachian SchoolsProject REAL

Academic Engagement Enhancement

Competence Enhancement Behavior Management

Classroom Social Dynamics Management

Implications for Intervention: Pilot Outcomes of Project REAL Students’ sense of classroom belonging declined sharply

between fall and spring in control schools, but remained stable and positive across the year in intervention schools

Students’ positive ratings of classmates’ acceptance of academic effort and achievement declined in control schools but remained positive and stable across the school year in intervention schools

At the end of the intervention year, students in intervention schools showed fewer teacher-rated aggressive behaviors compared to students in control schools

Parallel analyses indicated that students in intervention, compared to control, schools rated their classrooms as less emotionally risky at the end of the school year

Implications for Intervention: The Role of Teachers in Classroom Social DynamicsWhile the context and “mix” of students contribute

to whether aggression is associated with social prominence and whether popular-aggressive youth become dominant in the class, it appears that teachers play an important role

--Teachers as an “invisible hand” in directing classroom social structures and social dynamics

--Considerable variability in teachers’ ability to identify peer groups and social roles (e.g., bullies, victims, leaders)

--Teachers appear to have more accurate conceptions of girls’ groups and social roles as compared to the groups and social roles of boys

Implications for Interventions: Supporting Students with High Incidence Disabilities Universal Interventions are needed that focus on classroom

social dynamics (i.e., creating contexts that reduce hierarchical social structures)

Functional assessments for students with high incidence disabilities should center on the social functions and supports for their behavior

There is a need to be cognizant of the different subtypes of youth with high incidence disabilities and to establish interventions that correspond with their social roles (i.e., socially prominent, socially marginalized) and their peer affiliation patterns

Implications for Intervention: Universal Intervention by teacher awareness

--Classroom social hierarchies and social roles

--Peer group affiliations and peer support processes

--Differences between sociometric popularity, perceived popularity, and peer affiliation

Implications for Intervention: Individualized Individualized social interventions for students

with high incidence disabilities should be responsive to:

--Peer affiliations (i.e., popular peers, aggressive

peers, marginalized, socially isolated) --Social roles (i.e., leader, bully, bully/victim, victim)

--Interaction patterns (synchronous support & peer reinforcement)

Issues in Training and Implementation to Support Teachers Training Delivery

--Inservice --Online support --Consultation

Implementation --Fidelity --Maintenance --Individualization for students with high incidence disabilities and students at risk of being identified for special education services