Winter/Spring 2011-2012 SERC · All Grade Levels, 2010-2011 17 Figure R: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity, Connecticut Schools, All Grade Levels, 2011-2012 18 What

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Data Report and Summary Winter/Spring 2011-2012

State Education Resource Center

25 Industrial Park Road, Middletown, CT 06457

Phone: 860-632-1485 ● Fax: 860-632-8870

www.ctserc.org/pbis

SERC

PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013

Purpose: To summarize the goals, outcomes, and needs of Connecticut’s Positive Behavioral

Interventions and Supports Initiative.

It is the policy of the State Education Resource Center (SERC) that no person shall be discriminated against or excluded from participation in any SERC programs or activities on the basis of race, color, language, religion, age, marital or civil union status, national origin, ancestry, sex/gender, intellectual disability, physical disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. Inquiries regarding SERC’s nondiscrimination policies should be directed to Alfred P. Bruno, SERC General Counsel at [email protected].


Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports Data Report and Summary

Presented by: State Education Resource Center (SERC)

Marianne Kirner, Ph.D. Executive Director

Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports Initiative

Alice Henley Assistant Director for Program Development & LEA Services

Sarah Brzozowy, Ed.D. Eben McKnight Tarold Miller Michelle Weaver, J.D. Consultants, PBIS Coordination, Training, and Technical Assistance

Sarah-Anne Nicholas Education Services Specialist

Publications Unit

Jeremy Bond Communication & Publications Coordinator Jodylynn Talevi Media/Technology Associate

In collaboration with:

Connecticut State Department of Education University of Connecticut Neag School of Education, Center for Behavioral Education and Research (CBER)



Contents

What is Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports? 1Figure A: PBIS Integrated Elements and Basic Logic for Maximum Student Outcomes

2

What is the purpose of PBIS? 2 What does implementation of PBIS look like? 3

Figure B: PBIS Subsystems 3Figure C: PBIS Continuum of Support 4

How does PBIS align with Connecticut’s Scientific Research-Based Interventions (SRBI) Framework?

5

Figure D: SRBI Integrated Curriculum 5

What is the history of PBIS in Connecticut? 6Figure E: PBIS Systems Implementation Logic Model 6

How many Connecticut districts and schools are adopting PBIS? 7Figure F: Number of Connecticut Schools and Districts Trained in PBIS (2000-2012) 7Figure G: Connecticut Towns with Schools Trained in PBIS (2000-2012) 8Figure H: Percentage of Connecticut Schools and Districts Trained in PBIS by Grade Level (2000-2012)

8

What is Connecticut’s State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)? What is the connection to PBIS?

9

What does the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) data say about implementation in Connecticut?

9

Figure I: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort A, Beginning Training 2007-2008

10

Figure J: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort B, Beginning Training 2008-2009

11

Figure K: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort C, Beginning Training 2009-2010

11

What do we learn about implementation through the use of School-wide Information System (SWIS) data?

12

Figure L: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut Elementary Schools (2009-2012)

13

Figure M: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut Middle Schools (2009-2012)

13


Figure N: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut High Schools (2009-2012)

14

Figure O: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut PK-8 Schools (2009-2012)

14

What do the data reflect regarding ethnicity in ODRs? 15

Figure P: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity, Connecticut Schools, All Grade Levels, 2009-2010

17

Figure Q: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity, Connecticut Schools, All Grade Levels, 2010-2011

17

Figure R: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity, Connecticut Schools, All Grade Levels, 2011-2012

18

What is the current need/demand for PBIS training and support in Connecticut? 19 How is PBIS supportive of school reform efforts in Connecticut? 19 Summary 20 Connecticut PBIS Three-Year Goals (2011-2014) 21 Appendix A 25 Appendix B 37

PBIS Data Report and Summary © SERC 2013 1

What is Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports?

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a systems approach to teaching and managing behavior in schools. The goal of establishing a PBIS system is to enhance the capacity of schools, families, and communities to create and maintain positive school environments so all students can achieve academically and socially.

PBIS involves a continuum of evidence-based practices for all students, supported by all staff, and sustained in both classroom and non-classroom settings (such as hallways, buses, and restrooms). The PBIS model uses a systemic approach so that otherwise isolated parts of the school operate in tandem. Taking a behavioral approach to school-wide discipline creates an environment in which staff is an important part of helping students achieve outcomes by choosing more effective, efficient, and desirable behaviors.

Schools using a PBIS approach focus on creating and sustaining primary (school-wide), secondary (small group), and tertiary (individual) systems of support that improve lifestyle results (personal, health, social, family, work, recreation) for students and families [Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP): Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2012]. This multi-level approach to intervention is a more comprehensive way of responding to students’ behavioral needs because the focus is on layers of prevention and the logical distribution of resources.

An established and organized continuum of support allows human and fiscal resources to be redistributed to the students with the greatest need, while ensuring behavioral and social learning success for all students. Schools achieve comprehensive student behavioral success by examining the factors that impact behavior as well as the relationship between environment and behavior.

PBIS also works to improve overall school climate, decrease reactive management, maximize academic achievement for all students, integrate academic and behavioral initiatives, and address the specific needs of students with severe emotional and behavioral concerns (OSEP: Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2012).

The four integrated elements (Figure A), data, practices, systems, and outcomes, are the foundation of a PBIS model. Data drive the decisions regarding behavioral needs in the educational setting. The evidence-based practices provide staff and students with the tools to achieve desired behavioral outcomes. The systems provide the structure and resources required by the chosen practices. Outcomes are short- and long-term goals that staff, students, and family want to achieve in the school.

Pairing the integrated elements with a system of training, coaching, and evaluation through a cultural and contextual lens improves implementation fidelity to maximize student outcomes.

PBIS Data

What i

The primauniversal universal

Opportunestablishiinclude: mfor discou

Report and S

Figure A: PBI

Source: Adap

is the pur

ary focus of Plevel. This procedures t

nities for stung a school-w

methods to exuraging proble

Summary © S

IS Integrated

pted from OSEP

rpose of P

PBIS is to provis accomplishat contain c

udent succeswide system xamine needem behaviors

SERC 2013

Elements an

P: Center on Po

PBIS?

vide proactivehed when th

clear and cons

ss are enhanfor reinforc

s through das; and monito

nd Basic Logic

ositive Behavio

e and effectivhe whole schsistent behav

nced by direing desired bta; developm

oring impleme

c for Maximu

oral Interventio

ve behaviorahool communvioral expecta

ectly teachinbehavior. Th

ment of schooentation and

m Student O

ons and Suppo

l support for nity establishations.

ng universal he necessary ol-wide expecprogress.

Outcomes

orts, 2012

all students ahes and main

expectationselements of

ctations; strat

2

at the ntains

s and f PBIS tegies

PBIS Data

What d

PBIS provbehavioraresearch-vSupports however, students o

The natiodelineateThe Schomemberssettings ipractices,rather thaand off-sisupportinpractices,respond t

Schools aeach subsSchools cuthe stude

Report and S

does imp

vides a framal practices avalidated or provides exschools may

or staff. onal Center od five PBIS su

ool-wide subs across all sein which del processes, aan instructionte events. Th

ng family part processes, a

to interventio

re charged wsystem basedustomize the nts and famil

Source: Adap

Summary © S

plementat

mework for and systems.evidence-bas

xamples of ty choose to co

n PBIS syntheubsystems: Scsystem identettings. The livery of instand systems fn. These setthe Family subticipation anand systems

ons in place at

with identifyid on their neidentified pries served by

pted from OSEP

SERC 2013

tion of PB

implementin. Schools arsed. The nathe most apontinue using

esized the rechool-wide, Cltifies practiceClassroom sutruction is efor settings itings include bsystem identd ensuring fathat suppor

t the school-w

ng the practeeds, resourcactices and in

y the school.

Figure B:

P: Center on Po

BIS look l

g a continure encourage

ational Centeppropriate, efg practices th

esearch base lassroom, Noes, processesubsystem ideemphasized. n which the sporting evetifies practiceamily access.rt individual wide level of

ices that willes, and the cnterventions

PBIS Subsyst

ositive Behavio

like?

um of evideed to use pr

er on Positiveffective, effi

hat have achie

around schoon-classroom,s, and syste

entifies practi The Non-clemphasis is nts, assemblies, processes. Finally, theand small grprevention.

l have the grcompetence to the school

tems

oral Interventio

ence-based, ractices and e Behavioral cient, and reved measur

ol-based beh Family, and ms for all sices, processelassroom subon monitorinies, cafeteria, and systeme Student suroups of stud

reatest likelihof the requirl’s context an

ons and Suppo

prevention-bsystems thaIntervention

relevant pracrable outcom

havior supporStudent (Figu

students andes, and systebsystem idenng and supers, hallways, bs for engaginbsystem idendents who d

hood of succered impleme

nd to the cultu

orts, 2012

3

based, at are s and

ctices; es for

rt and ure B). staff

ems in ntifies vision buses, ng and ntifies o not

ess in nters. ure of

PBIS Data

Practices typically iand tertiarather sudifferent

The primsettings. 70% to 90

The secoresponsivmanner fand fidelistudents b

The tertiathose stuplans arepopulatio

Primary Sup• Scho

SystStaf

Report and S

within the suncludes thre

ary. Additionpplement, plevels. Stude

ary level incWhen implem

0% of student

ndary level ive to primaryor small grouity, the seconbehaviorally.

ary level is thdents who do

e usually necon.

Source: Adap

pport: ool/Classroomtems for All Stff, and Setting

Summary © S

ubsystems aree levels of su

nal supports arimary suppo

ents receive su

cludes practicmented effects.

includes targy practices. ups of studenndary level is

he most inteo not responessary to me

Fi

pted from OSEP

m-Wide tudents, gs

SERC 2013

e organized aupport with iat the secondort. In this upport at the

ces and systectively and wi

geted practiceSecondary

nts demonstrs typically ab

nsive and incd to the primeet the indiv

igure C: PBIS

P: Center on Po

along a continncreasing intdary and tert

way, suppore level that m

ems for all sth fidelity, sc

es and systeinterventions

rating like neble to effecti

cludes speciamary and secovidual needs

Continuum o

ositive Behavio

T

nuum of supptensity and cotiary levels arrts are layeratches their r

students andchools should

ems for studes are typical

eeds. When iively support

alized practicondary suppoof an additi

of Support

oral Interventio

Secondary• Sp

for

Tertiary Supp• Individ

with H

port (Figure Complexity: prre not intendred rather thresponsivene

staff, impled expect to se

ents who arely provided implementedt an addition

ces and systeorts. At this ional 1% to

ons and Suppo

y Support: ecialized Gror Students wi

ort: dualized SuppHigh-Risk Beh

C). The contirimary, secon

ded to replacehan substitutess to prevent

mented acroee a response

e not consistin a standar

d with high qnal 10% to 30

ems of suppolevel, interve10% of a st

orts, 2012

oup Support Sth High-Risk B

port for Studehavior

4

nuum ndary, e, but ted at tion.

oss all e from

tently rdized

quality 0% of

ort for ention udent

Systems Behavior

ents

PBIS Data

How dInterve

The ConcompreheFramewocontinuumoriented sgoals thacompone

SRBI depeexisting pcharactersuccess, character

Report and S

does PBIentions (S

necticut SRBensive, and hrk provides m of supportsystem of sch

at are achievnt of PBIS.

ends on contpractices and

istics of SRBdata-based distics also are

A•P•Frpr

Summary © S

IS align SRBI) Fra

BI Framewohigh-quality m

specific guit for behaviohool functionived by evide

tinuous progsystems accoI include impdecision make fundamenta

Fi

Source

Assessmeneriod universrequent/ conrogress monit

SERC 2013

with Comework?

ork is used multi-tiered sy

dance for ioral and sociing and resou

ence-based p

ress monitorording to the plementation king and proal to PBIS.

igure D: SRBI

e: Adapted fro

t Systemsal screeningtinuous toring

DecisS

•Methodsdata

•Methodsstrategic decisions

nnecticut?

for develoystem of supmplementatial developm

urce allocatiopractices deli

ring in order most currentof fidelity, s

oblem solvin

Integrated C

om John Hintz

sion MakinSystems for organizin

s for making and systemic

s

Ins•Sciecore

•Scie"tie

t’s Scien

oping and ipport for all sion of evideent (Figure Dn. SRBI requvered throug

to sustain at data, also instudent perfog, and unive

Curriculum

ze, Ph.D. (200

ng

ng

c

structionalentifically supe curriculumentifically sup

ers" of interve

ntific Res

mplementingstudents. PBence-based pD). PBIS is aires the creatgh an efficie

chieved outcntegral to PBormance as aersal screeni

09)

Systempported

pported entions

search-Ba

g a coordinBIS within thepractices aloalso a prevention of data-dent system,

comes and mBIS. Other dea measuremeng. All of

5

ased

nated, e SRBI ong a ntion-driven a key

modify efining ent of these

PBIS Data

What i

The natiostructure leadershipthe know

Connecticcoach to sConnecticessential and conte

With theswith the CRegional Collaborasupportinand resouand RESC

Report and S

is the hist

onal Center oof PBIS at t

p team with aledge and pra

Source

cut school disserve on a brcut have submto constructi

extual fit.

se implemenCenter for Be

Education Stive. The

ng districts anurces. There s. The Colla

Summary © S

tory of PB

on PBIS provithe state anda dual focus oactices that w

Figure E:

e: Center on P

stricts align wroader districmitted a distrng and susta

tation featurehavioral EduService CentCollaborative

nd school-basis also a comborative is bu

SERC 2013

BIS in Co

ides practitiod local levelson sustaining

will make the

PBIS Systems

Positive Beha

ith the suggect leadership rict plan to scaining PBIS im

res in mind, tcation and Reters (RESCs)e works to sed teams in

mprehensive suilding capac

nnecticut

oners with ans (Figure E). g public suppoframework su

s Implementa

avioral Interve

ested logic moteam. Since cale-up PBIS o

mplementatio

the State Edesearch (CBE

in Connecstandardize PBIS implem

statewide datcity through C

t?

n implementa The model

ort for PBIS imustainable.

ation Logic M

entions and S

odel by appoi2007-2008, dover time. T

on district-wid

ucation ResoR) at the Uni

cticut to estConnecticut

mentation thrtabase of all CBER to main

ation logic mdemonstrate

mplementatio

Model

Supports (201

inting a distridistricts new

This comprehede while mai

ource Center versity of Cotablish the t’s approachrough shared schools train

ntain a netwo

model to guides the needon and embe

12)

ct coordinatoto PBIS train

ensive approntaining a cu

(SERC) has jnnecticut andConnecticut

h to trainingtraining mat

ned by CBER, ork of high-q

6

de the for a

edding

or and ning in ach is

ultural

oined d four

PBIS g and terials SERC,

quality

PBIS Data

trainers fo(STC). CB

How m

Since 200of 2011-2PBIS trainall of Confrom distr

Schools aPBIS trainmiddle sc

Source: SE

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Report and S

or PBIS throuER accepted

many Con

0, Connecticu2012, 294 sching (Figure F)

nnecticut’s scricts across th

t all grade lening. Of thehools 18% (5

Figure F: Nu

RC, 2012

25

8

Summary © S

ugh the Schooa fourth new

necticut

ut has been thools represe). This total rchool districtshe state is dep

vels (preschoe 294 schools3), high schoo

umber of Con

4757

18 2

SERC 2013

ol-wide Positi cohort of PB

districts

raining schooenting 66 distepresents 23s (Connecticupicted in Figu

ool through hs trained in ols 15% (45),

nnecticut Scho

108

20 26

ve BehavioraBIS trainers fo

and scho

ols in PBIS thrtricts in Conn% of the state

ut State Depaure G.

high), as well Connecticut,and PK-8 sch

ools and Dist

131

17

29

al Interventionor STC session

ools are a

rough CBER, Snecticut havee’s public schartment of E

as alternativ elementary

hools 10% (30

tricts Trained

72

246

395

ns and Suppons in fall 2011

dopting P

SERC, and thee received athools and appEducation, 20

ve schools, haschools rep

0) (Figure H).

d in PBIS (200

294

56 66

orts Training .

PBIS?

e RESC Allianct least one yeproximately 3012). Particip

ave participatresent 57%

00-2012)

Schools

Districts

7

Cadre

ce. As ear of

39% of pation

ted in (166),

s

PBIS Data

Source: SE

Figure H

Source: SE

Report and S

Figure

RC, 2012

: Percentage

RC, 2012

Summary © S

e G: Connecti

of Connectic

18%

15%

SERC 2013

icut Towns w

cut Schools an

10%

with Schools T

nd Districts T

5

Trained in PB

Trained in PB

57%

IS (2000-2012

IS by Grade L

Elemen

Middle

High

PK-8

2)

Level (2000-2

ntary

e

8

2012)


What is Connecticut’s State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)? What is the connection to PBIS?

State Personnel Development Grants from the U.S. Department of Education have facilitated efforts to implement SRBI. From 2007-2011, SERC coordinated its first SPDG, involving six model PBIS sites and representing four districts with varying resources and student needs. Data indicated that use of a systems approach can improve performance of all students while reducing achievement gaps fairly dramatically. The results also suggested that in a short amount of time, with external support and strong building leadership, educators were able to establish the structures needed to continuously improve instructional practices and, ultimately, student performance. Therefore, SERC, under the auspices of the CSDE, sought the opportunity to secure additional federal funding to build a statewide system to ensure fidelity of implementation of SRBI statewide. In 2011, Connecticut was one of eight states awarded an SPDG, bringing $4.6 million to the state over five years. PBIS is one of the key components of the current SPDG. Participating school-based teams approach two challenges simultaneously:

1. increasing reading performance through strategic instruction, and 2. reducing discipline referrals through positive behavioral interventions and supports. The

unique pairing of these two outcomes recognizes that student success can often be directly linked with the opportunity to learn in a safe and respectful environment. This integrated approach aims to eliminate the disparity in academic performance for students with disabilities, students of color, and students acquiring English.

SERC has been charged with coordinating this five-year project in collaboration with the CSDE. Other grant partners include the RESC Alliance, UCONN/CBER, the Connecticut Parent Information and Resource Center, the Connecticut Parent Advocacy Center, and Connecticut’s Birth to 3 System. Connecticut’s SPDG essentially has three goals:

1. training schools on research-based practices to address reading instruction aligned with Common Core State Standards, behavioral interventions, educational benefit, and family engagement;

2. creating and sustaining statewide systems to support educators in implementing these practices; and

3. tracking student performance to ensure all students are achieving at higher levels.

What does the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) data say about implementation in Connecticut?

PBIS includes the use of data to assess the impact of behavioral supports at each tier of support. Data are also used to make decisions about what type of supports are provided to which students.

PBIS Data

The Schofidelity at

• Ex• B• O• Sy• M• M• D

On the SErespectiveinitial SEimplemen

SET data data showbehavioraimplemen

Figure

Source: pb

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Report and S

ol-wide EvaluTier I. The S

xpectations Dehavioral Exp

On-going Systeystem for Res

Monitoring anManagement

istrict-level S

ET, a score ofely reference

ET is considntation.

over three yew that scoresal support. ntation fidelit

e I: Percentag

bisevals.org

Summary © S

uation Tool (ET scores sev

Defined pectations Taem for Rewarsponding to Bd Decision M

upport

f at least 80/e “Behavioralered a bas

ears demonsts improve thr

This suggety (Figures I, J

ge of Connect

Year 1

SERC 2013

SET) evaluateven compone

ught rding BehavioBehavioral Vioaking

/80 indicates Expectationeline assess

trate that schroughout the sts the imp, and K).

ticut Schools Training 2

es the extentnts of PBIS im

oral Expectatiolations

fidelity of PBs Taught” anment that

hools in Year training serieortance of

Implementin2007-2008 (N

Year 2

t to which PBmplementatio

ons

BIS implemennd the meanhighlights a

1 of training es as schoolsa three-yea

ng PBIS to CriN=22)

BIS is being ion:

ntation at Tieof all seven

reas of foc

typically do s begin to expr training se

terion: Coho

Year

implemented

er I. The numcomponents

cus for begi

not meet SETpand and orgeries to pro

rt A, Beginnin

3

Not Met SET

Met SET

10

d with

mbers s. The inning

T. The ganize omote

ng

T


Figure J: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort B, Beginning

Training 2008-2009 (N=36)

Source: pbisevals.org

Figure K: Percentage of Connecticut Schools Implementing PBIS to Criterion: Cohort C, Beginning

Training 2009-2010 (N=22)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Not Met SET

Met SET

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Not Met SET

Met SET


What do we learn about implementation through the use of School-wide Information System (SWIS) data?

All district and school leadership teams are taught to use the integrated elements (data, outcomes, practices, and systems) to process current strengths and needs and to devise an ongoing action plan. Review of up-to-date data is essential to making relevant and durable decisions about changes to the school-wide system and program.

Beginning in 2009-2010, schools that applied to participate in Connecticut’s PBIS Training Series were required to use the School-wide Information System (SWIS) for, at minimum, the three years in which they are involved in the training series. SWIS is a web-based data collection system that tracks Office Discipline Referral (ODR) information. It allows school staff to distinguish between major and minor infractions.

Schools are encouraged to use five standard reports, commonly known as the “Big 5,” on a monthly and annual basis. The “Big 5” reports are: Average Referrals Per Day Per Month; Referrals by Problem Behavior; Referrals by Time; Referrals by Location; and Referrals by Student. The system also allows staff to produce a wide variety of custom graphs and reports defined by a myriad of parameters (e.g., location, time of day, behavior, administrative decision, individual student, ethnicity, IEP status, and referring staff).

Together the Big 5 highlight the essential information about the current condition of behavior in the school and enable teams to detect areas of success and immediate concern. State-level evaluators may access aggregate statewide data for three of these charts (referrals by problem behavior, time, and location) through PBIS Evaluations.

SWIS is primarily a school-based progress monitoring tool. Schools are encouraged to begin entering ODR information before the first year of implementation so they have a baseline with which to compare subsequent years. Most PBIS schools in Connecticut use the SWIS system. Those that choose not to do so may have difficulty reviewing the data necessary during team meetings and trainings to engage fully in the decision-making process.

In the following figures (Figures L, M, N, and O), the 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 data show that Connecticut PBIS schools using SWIS identified abusive language/profanity, defiance/disrespect, disruption, harassment/bullying, and physical aggression as the top five most common problem behaviors reported.

The data also show a decrease in the frequency of defiance/disrespect at all grade levels at Connecticut PBIS Schools. High school and PK-8 school levels report the greatest decreases, 6.6 percentage points and 6.8 percentage points, respectively.

Reports of physical aggression have also decreased at all grade levels. The most notable difference occurs at the PK-8 school level with an 8.8 percentage-point decrease.


Data depict slight increases in the frequency of harassment/ bullying at the elementary, high, and PK-8

levels. This change may be attributed to the new bullying legislation, PA-11-232, which requires new

procedures for identifying and reporting incidences of bullying in schools.

Figure L: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut Elementary Schools (2009-2012)


Figure M: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Problem Behavior – Connecticut Middle Schools (2009-2012)


9.1%

28.8%

9.1% 4.8%

32.1%

9.2%

25.9%

9.8% 5.1%

27.1%

8.5%

26.1%

8.7% 5.0%

30.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Abusive Language/Inappropriate Language/

Profanity

Defiance/ Disrespect/Insubordination/ Non-

compliance

Disruption Harassment/ Bullying Physical Aggression

2009-2010 N=63

2010-2011 N=83

2011-2012 N=101

7.3%

33.9%

15.9%

5.1%

10.8%

6.7%

30.4%

19.4%

4.5% 8.2% 7.8%

30.6%

18.8%

4.6% 7.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Abusive Language/Inappropriate Language/

Profanity

Defiance/ Disrespect/Insubordination/ Non-

compliance

Disruption Harassment/ Bullying Physical Aggression

2009-2010 N=15

2010-2011 N=25

2011-2012 N=35

PBIS Data

Figure

Source: pb

Figure

Source: pb

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Report and S

e N: Percenta

bisevals.org

e O: Percenta

bisevals.org

4.8%5.2% 5

Abusive LanguaInappropriate Lan

Profanity

6.4% 7.8%

Abusive LanguaInappropriate Lan

Profanity

Summary © S

age Office Dis

age Office Dis

25.9%2

5.1%

age/guage/

DefiancInsubord

co

32.2%2

9.2%

age/guage/

DefiancInsubord

co

SERC 2013

scipline Refer(2

scipline Refer(2

%23.4% 19.3%

e/ Disrespect/dination/ Non-mpliance

%26.5% 25.4%

e/ Disrespect/dination/ Non-mpliance

rrals by Probl2009-2012)

rrals by Probl2009-2012)

8.7% 8.4% 4

Disruption

8.8% 9.5%

Disruption

lem Behavior

lem Behavior

1.4%4.9%

Harassm

5.1%8.6%

Harassm

r – Connectic

r – Connectic

1.3% 1.5%

ment/ Bullying

%4.9% 5.6%

ment/ Bullying

cut High Scho

cut PK-8 Scho

3.2% 1.3% 1

Physical Aggres

2009-2010 N=

2010-2011 N=

2011-2012 N=

25.7%

13.0%16.

Physical Aggres

2009-2010 N=

2010-2011 N=

2011-2012 N=

14

ools

ools

1.1%

sion

=16

=21

=27

.9%

sion

=18

=27

=35


What do the data reflect regarding ethnicity in ODRs? One of the features in SWIS allows schools to view ODR data by student ethnicity. This shows school staff whether the proportion of students with ODRs over- or under-represents the proportion of students in any ethnic group. Ethnicity data are available only from schools that use the ethnicity feature. SERC has encouraged full use of this feature by all Connecticut schools using SWIS. Analysis of Connecticut’s SWIS data at the state level demonstrates disproportionality by ethnicity in all grades, with some groups overrepresented and other groups underrepresented in the data (Figures P, Q, and R). Although there was a spike in disproportionality of ODR data from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011, the data demonstrate the narrowing of the disproportionality gap within various ethnic groups over a three-year period. Between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012, there was an overall decrease in underrepresentation among White students. In 2009-2010, White students represented 56% of the total enrollment while representing only 44% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, White students represented 55% of total enrollment and 47% of all students with referrals. Between 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, there was an overall decrease in overrepresentation among Hispanic/Latino and Black students. In 2010-2011, Hispanic/Latino students represented 21% of total enrollment, but 33% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Hispanic/Latino students still represented 21% of the total population, but only 27% of all students with referrals. In 2010-2011, Black students represented 15% of the total population, yet 27% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Black students represented 16% of the total enrollment, but only 23% of all students with referrals. Data disaggregated by grade level showed similar decreases in disproportionality from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 (Appendix A). At the elementary school level, the data show an overall decrease in overrepresentation among Black students. In 2009-2010, Black students represented approximately 15.8% of the total enrollment, yet 27.3% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Black students represented 13.1% of the total enrollment, yet 21.2% of all students with referrals.

The middle school level data show an overall decrease in overrepresentation among Hispanic/Latino students. In 2009-2010, Hispanic/Latino students represented 12.7% of total enrollment and 22.9% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Hispanic/Latino students represented 21.8% of total enrollment and 30% of all students with referrals.

Underrepresentation among White students has continuously decreased from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 at the middle school level. In 2009-2010, White students represented 65.1% of total enrollment and 45.6% of all students with referrals. In 2010-2011, White students represented 57.2% of total


enrollment and 41.4% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, White students represented 58.5% of total enrollment and 44.9% of all students with referrals.

At the high school level, data demonstrate a decrease in overrepresentation of Black students even as enrollment increased. In 2009-2010, Black students represented 9.2% of the total enrollment and 14.4% of all students with referrals. In 2010-2011, Black students represented 7.3% of total enrollment and 11.8% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, Black students represented 13% of total enrollment and 14.1% of all students with referrals.

High school-level data show an overall decrease in underrepresentation of White students over the three-year period. In 2009-2010, White students represented 76.4% of total enrollment and 71.5% of all students with referrals. In 2011-2012, White students represented 68.7% of total enrollment and 66.7% of all students with referrals.

At the elementary school level, the data show an overall decrease in overrepresentation among Black students. The same trend is demonstrated with Hispanic/Latino students at the elementary school level.

Connecticut PBIS trainers and technical assistance providers will continue to work with schools to review their data through the lens of ethnicity to develop and implement action plans to address discrepancies.

PBIS Data

Figure P

Source: pb

Figure Q

Source: pb

1

1

Report and S

P: Percentage

bisevals.org

Q: Percentage

bisevals.org

1%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Summary © S

e Office Disci

e Office Disci

5%1%

5%0%

SERC 2013

pline Referra2

ipline Referra2

17%

2%

2

15%

1%

2

als by Ethnicit2009-2010

als by Ethnici2010-2011

21%25% 28

21%27%33

ty, Connectic

ity, Connectic

0%

8%

0

2%

3%

1

cut Schools, A

cut Schools, A

0%% 0%

% Po

% of

0%1% 0

% Pop

% of S

All Grade Lev

All Grade Lev

56%

%

44

opulation

Students w/O

56%

0%

pulation

Students w/ O

17

els,

vels,

4%

DRs

38%

DRs

PBIS Data

Figure R

Source: pb

1

Report and S

R: Percentage

bisevals.org

1%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Summary © S

e Office Disci

5%0%

SERC 2013

pline Referra2

16%

1%

23

als by Ethnicit2011-2012

21%3%

ty, Connectic

2%

27%

1

cut Schools, A

0%1% 0

% Po

% of

All Grade Lev

55%

0%

4

opulation

Students w/O

18

vels,

47%

DRs


What is the current need/demand for PBIS training and support in Connecticut?

The current demand for PBIS training and support in Connecticut is quite extensive, as there continues to be a need for a framework of evidence-based practices for behavioral support in schools. New suspension-expulsion guidelines, as well as the state’s revised anti-bullying legislation, are likely contributors to the demand for PBIS training. PBIS includes support for the behavioral and mental health needs of all Connecticut’s students.

How is PBIS supportive of school reform efforts in Connecticut?

Turnaround Schools The United States Department of Education requires states with approved ESEA waivers to classify at least 5 percent of Title I schools as turnaround schools. Connecticut was granted the ESEA waiver in 2012 and subsequently identified 28 turnaround schools. A total of 21 (or 75%) of Connecticut’s turnaround schools have participated in PBIS training (SERC, 2013). Focus Schools The Focus School designation is designed to identify schools with the lowest-performing student subgroups across the State, which to this point may have been masked by overall student performance. Focus Schools were identified using CMT/CAPT 2011 data. A total of 29 of the 55 identified Focus Schools (or 53%) have participated in PBIS training (SERC, 2013). Alliance Districts Public Act 12-116 created the Alliance District program to help districts raise student performance and close achievement gaps by pursuing bold and innovative reform strategies. The law established a new process for identifying 30 Alliance Districts – the districts with the lowest district performance index (DPI) scores statewide – and targeted increased Education Cost Sharing (ECS) funding for these districts. Each district’s receipt of its designated allocation is conditioned upon district submission, and Connecticut State Department of Education approval, of an Alliance District Plan for the expenditure of the new increment of conditional funds in the context of the district’s overall strategy to improve academic achievement. Currently, 26 of 30 (or 87%) of Connecticut’s Alliance Districts have participated in PBIS training (SERC, 2013). Commissioner’s Network Public Act 12-116 establishes a Commissioner’s Network to provide new resources and flexibilities to improve student achievement in the state’s lowest-performing schools. The Commissioner’s Network is designed as a partnership between local stakeholders and the state and will serve as a vehicle for innovative initiatives, a platform for sharing effective practices, and a model for other schools and districts throughout the state.


Statute permits the Commissioner to select up to 25 schools for the Network over the next three years. Most schools will be selected to join the Network for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years, but a limited number of schools will be considered to join the Network for 2012-13. Network turnaround plans will include intensive and transformative strategies that are necessary to turnaround schools that, to date, have been insufficiently successful in their improvement efforts. Currently, 75% of districts with approved plans for schools in the Commissioner’s Network are a part of PBIS training (SERC, 2013). Review Schools Review Schools are among Connecticut’s lowest performing, irrespective of Title I status. All schools with CMT/ CAPT 2012 participation rates less than 95 percent, four-year cohort graduation rates below 60 percent (for the graduating class of 2011), three-year baseline School Performance Indexes (SPIs) below 64, or identification as Focus Schools were classified as Review Schools. Currently, 54/84 (or 64%) of Connecticut’s Review Schools have participated in PBIS training (SERC, 2013). See the PBIS Results-Based Accountability (RBA) Report Card (Appendix B).

Summary

As of 2011-12, almost one-fourth (23%) of Connecticut’s schools have participated in at least one year of PBIS training. Nationally and statewide, the majority of schools participating in PBIS are at the elementary level. Recent years have seen an increase in the number of middle and high schools as well. Outreach efforts to these schools will continue.

To ensure that all schools in Connecticut have access to coaching, training, and technical assistance, the CT PBIS Collaborative continues to invest in building capacity in PBIS trainers across the state. Through CT’s State Personnel Development Grant, SERC, CBER, and the RESC Alliance, educational leaders have participated in training with the field’s leading experts. These partnerships have provided Connecticut schools the opportunity to receive more intensive technical assistance, focusing on their specific implementation challenges and celebrating their successes. The CT PBIS Collaborative will continue to meet as a Professional Learning Community (PLC) specifically designed to sustain and expand training and technical assistance capabilities.

Analysis of Connecticut SET data reveals that by the third year of PBIS training, the majority of schools are implementing PBIS with fidelity. The CT PBIS Collaborative will continue to offer a three-year training series to promote implementation fidelity and will address specific implementation issues with each school in training.

SWIS data show that the top five problem behaviors are common across all grade levels. These problem behaviors include abusive language/profanity, defiance/disrespect, disruption, harassment/bullying, and physical aggression. Over the last three years, rates of referrals for two of these problem behaviors, physical aggression and defiance/disrespect, have decreased at all grade levels. Nationally, school-wide teams have expressed the desire to share classroom strategies with their staff earlier in the process. In


addition, there is evidence that developing classroom systems along with school-wide systems improves sustainability. With this in mind, the CT PBIS Collaborative will alter the scope and sequence of PBIS training to begin the training and technical assistance around classroom management practices earlier in the training series.

ODR data show that Connecticut continues to refer students of color disproportionately for behavioral violations at all grade levels. Hispanic/Latino and Black students are referred at much higher rates than their White peers. Over the past three years, the disproportionality gap has narrowed within each of these subgroups. However, the disproportionate pattern of referral rates endures. The CT PBIS Collaborative will continue to ensure that training and technical assistance through PBIS addresses issues of race/ethnicity and that trainers and technical assistance providers enhance the ability to focus data structures and practices with a lens on equity.

The CT PBIS Collaborative now includes the enhanced perspective of the four integrated elements in training to highlight the importance of considering culture and context when implementing PBIS. Systems and practices must reflect the school’s specific staff and student population to achieve maximum student outcomes. The Collaborative has also emphasized the importance of disaggregating ODR data by ethnicity and the need to consistently monitor reports by ethnicity to inform any changes to implementation. Given the importance of analyzing data through a variety of lenses, the CT PBIS Collaborative will work closely with individuals and organizations with expertise in culturally responsive pedagogy and discipline practices to further embed these practices into PBIS training, technical assistance, and coaching.

The CT PBIS Collaborative presents School-wide PBIS training curriculum in a manner that encourages teams to consider the impact of their support systems on students who represent subgroups of their school’s population (i.e. race, ethnicity, gender, etc.). Coaches meetings provide a space for in-depth conversation about the information and tools needed to analyze data for disproportionality. One purpose of these meetings is to ensure that schools are asking the types of questions about their data that will lead them to discover what might be contributing to these inequities. The CT PBIS Collaborative will continue to work to provide a continuum of behavioral supports that is reflective of students’ diverse strengths and needs in order to increase student achievement in a predictable, safe, and pro-social learning environment while eliminating racial disparities.

Connecticut PBIS Three-Year Goals (2011-2014)

Goals for Connecticut’s statewide system for PBIS were published in the PBIS Data Report and Summary: December 2011 (SERC, 2011). Since 2011, the CT PBIS Collaborative has undertaken a great deal to address these goals:


• Expanding the Connecticut PBIS Collaborative, a statewide comprehensive stakeholder group, that invests in systems for training, coaching, and evaluation, to address the growing demand for training and scaling-up in Connecticut districts.

This goal is ongoing. The CT PBIS Collaborative met five times in 2011-12. Representatives from all partners were in attendance at each meeting. The Collaborative will continue to meet in 2012-13 and further expand partnerships with Connecticut RESCs and CSDE. Participation from all stakeholders at these meetings ensures that statewide efforts to provide high-quality professional development and technical assistance around PBIS to all schools in Connecticut are consistent and aligned with the heavily researched national model.

• Expanding the Connecticut Model Schools Project to include identification of Banner Schools and Model Demonstration Sites.

The Model Schools Project was revamped and no schools were highlighted in 2011-12. However, the project will resume in 2012-13 and will recognize more schools across Connecticut for exemplary PBIS implementation.

• Building capacity in school-wide PBIS trainers through the extension of the PBIS Trainer of Trainers Network.

The PBIS Trainer of Trainers Network continued and was further enhanced by the addition of a session dubbed “Completers” for those who participated fully in School-wide PBIS Training Cadre. Additionally, CT PBIS played a role in the NE PBIS Conference serving on the planning/advisory committee, presenting a breakout session, exhibiting at the poster session, and participating as conference attendees in an effort to continuously develop CT PBIS expertise and contributions to the field. This goal is ongoing for 2012-13.

• Enhancing and building capacity for providing district-specific assistance in the development and management of secondary and tertiary behavior support systems and expertise of local personnel.

This goal is ongoing. Enhancements have been made, and will continue to be made, to the statewide training series regarding secondary and tertiary behavior support systems and building staff capacity to provide such support.

• Investigating further the local relationship between SWPBIS and academic outcomes.

This goal is ongoing. One specific approach to address this goal has been through CT’s SPDG of which PBIS is a significant component. The grant includes assessment of and support for implementing academic and behavioral systems and practices. In particular, the grant is examining the impact of integrated SWPBIS and academic systems on reading.


• Identifying further a static funding source for scaling-up efforts.

This goal needs to be continued. Collaboration with CSDE will help with determining future fiscal support for PBIS expansion and maintenance in Connecticut.

• Providing evidence-based content and materials to develop interventions to address systematic disproportionality in suspension and expulsion by race and other subgroups.

Members of the PBIS initiative will maintain collaboration with other initiatives at SERC, such as the Initiative on Diversity in Education (IDE), to develop content and materials for training that will support school-based teams with recognizing and addressing disproportionate referral and administrative consequences. This remains a primary goal for 2012-13.

• Collaborating with PBIS school districts to address the discipline gap by gender, race, and special education.

This goal is ongoing. Coaches’ meetings were specially tailored to help recognize the need to address disproportionality. In the future, there will also be a focus on using tools at the school-wide level to identify groups within individual schools that may be experiencing disparate treatment by staff responding to behavioral infractions.

• Sharing Connecticut data with PBIS schools to examine function of behavior and its correlation with the most common behavioral infractions in middle and high schools (defiance/disrespect/insubordination, etc.).

This goal is ongoing. The CT PBIS Collaborative is collecting a substantial data set for analysis and sharing as an increasing number of middle schools and high schools are participating in PBIS training. Schools will be provided guidance on how to use data to design possible responses that may result in decreases of the common infractions and increases in more appropriate behaviors.

• Enhancing the visibility of PBIS in Connecticut through the Summit on PBIS, Web site, and related products.

This goal is ongoing. Related products include PBIS Data Report and Summary: December 2011 (2011), A Family Guide to PBIS in Connecticut (2011), PBIS as an Effective Approach to Bullying Prevention & Intervention: Complying with CT Public Act 11-232 (2012), and SERC Works: Best Practices from SERC: Spring 2012, No. 4 (2012). See www.ctserc.org/pbis.

• Investing in the increased knowledge about PBIS with Connecticut families through the Connecticut Parent Information and Resource Center (CT PIRC).

This goal is ongoing. PBIS continues to be a resource for consulting with CT PIRC about school-based behavioral support to students and families throughout Connecticut. A


brochure, A Family Guide to PBIS in Connecticut, was created and began dissemination in 2011. This guide will continue to be available to the public via the PBIS Web site.

AmAlaAsiBlaHisWhTot

Sourc

Sourc

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PBIS Data

Appen

merican Indiaaskan Native

an ack spanic/Latinhite tal ce: pbisevals.o

ce: pbisevals.o

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

AmIndian/A

Report and S

ndix A

Table

ToEnrol

an/ e

524no 71530rg

rg

mericanlaskan Native

Summary © S

e 1: Referrals

otal llment En50 057838548 019

Figure A: R

Asian

SERC 2013

s by Ethnicity

% of nrollment1.7%6.8%15.8%24.4%51.3%100.0%Referrals by Et

n

, Elementary

Students w/Referral47126142183462thnicity, Elem

Black

y, 2009-2010 (

ls% of Stuw/Refe.9%1.5%27.330.739.6100.0

mentary, 200

His

(N=8 Schools

udents errals

R%%3%7%6%0%09-2010

spanic/Latino

s)

Referrals4 7 305 386 383 1085

W

% of Enrollme

% of Students

25

% of Referrals.4% .6% 28.1% 35.6% 35.5% 100.0%

White

ent

s w/ Referrals


Table 2: Referrals by Ethnicity, Elementary, 2010-2011 (N=21)

Total Enrollment

% of Enrollment

Students w/Referrals

% of Studentsw/Referrals

Referrals % of Referrals

American Indian/ Alaskan Native

52 .7% 4 .6% 7 .4%Asian 571 7.3% 11 1.7% 12 .6%Black 1046 13.4% 177 26.7% 615 33.3%Hispanic/Latino 1241 15.9% 138 20.8% 399 21.6%Multi-racial 143 1.8% 13 2.0% 61 3.3%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian

13 .2% 6 .9% 18 1.0%White 4751 60.8% 313 47.3% 737 39.9%Total 7817 100.0% 662 100.0% 1849 100.0%Source: pbisevals.org

Figure B: Referrals by Ethnicity, Elementary, 2010-2011



Table 3: Referrals by Ethnicity, Elementary, 2011-2012 (N=44) Total Enrollment

% of Enrollment





109 .7% 5 .3% 11 .2% Asian 1095 6.6% 40 2.0% 77 1.2% Black 2163 13.1% 415 21.2% 1882 30.5% Hispanic/Latino 3538 21.5% 529 27.0% 1549 25.1% Multi-racial 463 2.8% 28 1.4% 90 1.5% Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian

48 .3% 7 .4% 21 .3% White 9062 55.0% 932 47.6% 2536 41.1% Total 16478 100.0% 1956 100.0% 6166 100.0%Source: pbisevals.org

Figure C: Referrals by Ethnicity, Elementary, 2011-2012


AmAlaAsiBlaHisUnkWhTot

Sourc

Sourc

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PBIS Data

merican Indiaaskan Native

an ack spanic/Latinknown

hite tal ce: pbisevals.o

ce: pbisevals.o

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

AmeIndian/

Nat

Report and S

ToEnro

an/ e

525no 42436rg

rg

ricanAlaskantive

Summary © S

Table 4: Re

otal llment En58 228 527 469 7 406 695 Figure D: Ref

Asian

SERC 2013

ferrals by Eth

% ofnrollment 1.6%6.2%14.3%12.7%.2%65.1%100.0%ferrals by Eth

Blac

hnicity, Midd

Studentsw/Referra15262221944386847

hnicity, Middl

k His

dle, 2009-201

s als

% of Stw/Ref1.83.126.22..545.100

le, 2009-2010

panic/Latino

0 (N=5)

tudents ferrals

R8%1%2%9%%6%0.0%0

Unknow

Referrals91 74 1069 866 9 1281 3390

wn

% of Enrollme

% of Students

28

% of Referrals2.7%2.2%31.5%25.5%.3%37.8%100.0%

White

ent

s w/ Referrals


Table 5: Referrals by Ethnicity, Middle, 2010-2011 (N=9)

Total Enrollment

% of Enrollment


% of Students w/Referrals



49 .9% 7 .5% 31 .6%Asian 220 4.2% 34 2.6% 57 1.1%Black 596 11.4% 231 17.5% 1064 20.9%Hispanic/Latino 1332 25.5% 488 37.0% 1906 37.4%Multi-racial 31 .6% 12 .9% 27 .5%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian

8 .2% 0 .0% 0 .0%White 2984 57.2% 546 41.4% 2016 39.5%Total 5220 100.0% 1318 100.0% 5101 100.0%


Figure E: Referrals by Ethnicity, Middle, 2010-2011



Table 6: Referrals by Ethnicity, Middle, 2011-2012 (N=19) Total Enrollment

% of Enrollment





74 .6% 12 .4% 80 .7%Asian 425 3.6% 33 1.1% 76 .6%Black 1627 14.0% 660 22.2% 3158 26.6%Hispanic/Latino 2539 21.8% 894 30.0% 3740 31.5%Multi-racial 145 1.2% 30 1.0% 149 1.3%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian

21 .2% 13 .4% 59 .5%White 6817 58.5% 1337 44.9% 4618 38.9%Total 11648 100.0% 2979 100.0% 11880 100.0%Source: pbisevals.org

Figure F: Referrals by Ethnicity, Middle, 2011-2012



Table 7: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2009-2010 (N=3)

Total Enrollment

% of Enrollment





31 1.3% 7 1.3% 15 .7%Asian 97 4.2% 6 1.1% 8 .4%Black 211 9.2% 79 14.4% 331 15.7%Hispanic/Latino 203 8.8% 64 11.7% 224 10.6%White 1758 76.4% 391 71.5% 1534 72.6%Total 2300 100.0% 547 100.0% 2112 100.0%


Figure G: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2009-2010




Total Enrollment

% of Enrollment



Referrals % ofReferrals


20 .4% 6 .5% 10 .2%Asian 124 2.5% 16 1.4% 50 .9%Black 362 7.3% 140 11.8% 593 11.1%Hispanic/Latino 925 18.7% 291 24.6% 1561 29.3%Multi-racial 6 .1% 3 .3% 32 .6%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian

2 .0% 6 .5% 8 .1%White 3499 70.9% 722 61.0% 3080 57.7Total 4938 100.0% 1184 100.0% 5334 100.0%Source: pbisevals.org

Figure H: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2010-2011




Total Enrollment

% of Enrollment





84 .7% 16 .6% 53 .4%Asian 601 4.8% 44 1.7% 198 1.5%Black 1638 13.0% 370 14.1% 1791 13.9%Hispanic/Latino 1533 12.2% 426 16.2% 1802 14.0%Multi-racial 76 .6% 19 .7% 115 .9%Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian

3 .0% 1 .0% 1 .0%White 8624 68.7% 1754 66.7% 8921 69.3%Total 12559 100.0% 2630 100.0% 12881 100.0%


Figure I: Referrals by Ethnicity, High, 2011-2012


Sourc

Sou

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AmerAlaskAsianBlackHispaUnknWhitTotal

PBIS Data

ce: pbisevals.o

urce: pbisevals

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

AmeIndian/

Nat

rican Indiankan Native n k anic/ Latinonown te l

Report and S

rg

s.org

ricanAlaskantive

TotaEnrollm

n/ 9 16 611o 7522 1971587

Summary © S

Table 10: R

Figure J

Asian

al ment

%Enro.11 382 47.7 127 1

SERC 2013

Referrals by E

J: Referrals b

Blac

% of ollment w6% 1.0%8.5%7.4%1% 2.4%00%

Ethnicity, PK-

by Ethnicity, P

k His

Students w/Referrals12169181316372

-8, 2009-2010

PK-8, 2009-20

panic/Latino

% of Studew/Referr.3%.5%45.4%48.7%.8%4.3%100%

0 (N=3)

010

Unknow

entsrals

Refe

% 7% 11

wn

% of Enrollme

% of Students

ferrals R2 5 701 016 8 53 785

34

White

ent

s w/ Referrals

% of Referrals .1%.3%39.3%56.9%.4%3.0%100%

AmeAlasAsiaBlacHispMultPaciNatiWhiTotaSourc

Sourc

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PBIS Data

erican Indiaskan Native an ck panic/ Latinti-Racial ific Islanderve Hawaiiante

al ce: pbisevals.o

ce: pbisevals.o

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

AmeriIndian/A

Nativ

Report and S

TotEnroll

n/ 577105o 7527/ n

166283rg

rg

canlaskanve

A

Summary © S

Table 11: R

tal ment Enr5 7 51 358 277 1 63 232 1

Figure K: Re

Asian

SERC 2013

Referrals by E

% of rollment w.2%2.7%37.1%26.8%9.8%0%23.4%100.0%eferrals by Et

Black

Ethnicity, PK-

Students w/Referrals08407217200141783thnicity, PK-8

Hispanic/Latin

-8, 2010-2011

s % of Stuw/Refe.0%1.0%52.027.71.3%.0%18%100.0

8, 2010-2011

no Multi-Ra

1 (N=6)

udents errals

R%%0%7%%%%0%

acial Pacific Native

eferrals0 14 1906 1247 60 0 543 3770

Islander/Hawaiian

% of Enrollme

% of Students

35

% of Referrals.0%.4%50.6%33.1%1.6%.0%14.4%100.0%

White

ent

s w/ Referrals

AmeAlasAsiaBlacHispMulPaciNatiWhiTotaSourc

Sourc

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PBIS Data

erican Indiaskan Native an ck panic/ Latinti-racial ific Islanderive Hawaiiaite al ce: pbisevals.o

ce: pbisevals.o

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

AmeriIndian/A

Nativ

Report and S

ToEnroll

an/ 3922no 182r/ n

21558rg

rg

canlaskanve

A

Summary © S

Table 12: R

otal lment En3 0 54 86 5 2 87 77 1

Figure M: R

Asian

SERC 2013

Referrals by Et

% of rollment w.6%1.5%38.4%32.1%.4%.0%27.0%100.0%eferrals by Et

Black

thnicity, PK-8

Students w/Referrals22599389001931185thnicity, PK-8

Hispanic/Latin

8, 2011-2012

s% of Stuw/Refe.2%.2%50.5%32.8%.0%.0%16.3%100.0

8, 2011-2012

no Multi-Ra

(N=16)

udents rrals

Re

%%%%%%%0%

acial Pacific Native

eferrals

2 4 1991 1461 0 0 708 4166

Islander/Hawaiian

% of Enrollme

% of Students

36

% of Referrals.0%.1%47.8%35.1%.0%.0%17.0%100.0%

White

ent

s w/ Referrals

RBA

Pro

Prog

ram

Pu

and

pro-

soc

Popu

latio

n Co

llege

and

Horn

er R

., Su

gaM

cInt

osh,

K.,

Fi

July

, 201

2

37 The

num

Stor

y be

h•

Sinc

e 2

part

icip

aTh

is to

tpu

blic

sc

• Be

twee

nto

sca

linap

prox

imdi

stric

ts

Prop

osed

• As

a re

sSE

RC w

ite

chni

cath

roug

h•

SERC

pr e

Beha

vio

annu

al N

2012

. Th

oppo

rtu

a Co

nneog

ram

Rep

ort

urpo

se: T

o pr

ovid

e st

cial

lear

ning

env

ironm

Resu

lt: P

ositi

ve B

eh C

aree

r Rea

dy.”

i G.,

& A

nder

son

(201

0). E

xam

ilte

r K.,

et a

l. (2

010)

. Prin

cipl

es

St2

Perf

orm

anc

mbe

r of C

onne

ctic

utr

aini

ng in

PBI

S

hind

the

base

line:

20

00,

260

of

Con

ated

in s

ome

leve

l oal

rep

rese

nts

18%

och

ools.

n

2007

-200

8 an

d 20

ng-u

p PB

IS d

istric

t-w

mat

ely

25%

, or

on

(CSD

E, 2

011)

. d

actio

ns to

turn

thul

t of c

onsis

tent

incr

ll co

ntin

ue to

pro

vid

al a

ssist

ance

, coa

chin

SER

C an

d RE

SC c

olla

esen

ted

at th

e U

nive

or E

duca

tion

& R

esea

Nor

thea

st P

BIS

Net

whi

s pro

vide

d sc

hool

leun

ity to

lear

n ab

out n

ectic

ut P

BIS

actio

n pl

at Car

d: S

tate

tu

dent

s with

a c

ontin

men

t whi

le e

limin

atin

havi

oral

Inte

rven

tions

ning

the

evid

ence

bas

e fo

r sch

of su

stai

nabl

e pr

even

tion:

Des

ate

Educ

atio

n Re

so

ce M

easu

re 1

ut

scho

ols t

hat h

avS

by S

ERC/

UCo

nn

nect

icut

’s

publ

ic

sof

PBI

S tr

aini

ng w

ith

or n

early

one

-fifth

o

011-

2012

, 41

dist

rict

wid

e. T

hese

41

dist

ricne

-four

th,

of C

onne

he c

urve

: ea

se in

dist

rict p

artic

e co

mpr

ehen

sive

PBng

, and

eva

luat

ion

toab

orat

ors.

er

sity

of C

onne

ctic

ut

rch

(CBE

R) a

s it h

oste

wor

k Le

ader

ship

For

umea

ders

and

pol

icy

ma

natio

nal P

BIS

effo

rts a

an.

Educ

atio

n Re

nuum

of b

ehav

iora

l sng

raci

al d

ispar

ities

.s a

nd S

uppo

rts (

PBIS

ool-w

ide

posit

ive

beha

vior

sup

igni

ng sc

ale-

up o

f sch

ool-w

ide

ourc

e Ce

nter

e re

ceiv

ed

choo

ls ha

ve

SERC

/UCo

nn.

of t

he s

tate

’s

ts c

omm

itted

ct

s re

pres

ent

ectic

ut’s

166

cipa

tion,

IS

trai

ning

, sc

hool

s

Cent

er fo

r ed

the

first

m

in M

ay

aker

s an

and

to sh

ape

The

Stor

Imp

the

Sev

al Pr

o•

SE sy se•

SE de of•

SE co to esou

rce

Cent

eup

port

s, re

flect

ive

of

) con

trib

utes

to th

e C

ppor

t. Fo

cus o

n Ex

cept

iona

l Chi

lpo

sitiv

e be

havi

or su

ppor

t to

p

25 In

dust

rial P

ark

Perf

ornu

mbe

r of C

onne

cti of

ry b

ehin

d th

e ba

sele

men

tatio

n of

PBI

S w

Scho

ol-w

ide

Eval

uati

uate

s the

crit

ical

fea

pose

d ac

tions

to t

ERC

will

con

tinue

a th

yste

ms a

re in

pla

ce, s

econ

dary

and

tert

iary

ERC

will

exp

and

the

cev

elop

dat

a-re

view

pf i

mpl

emen

tatio

n.

ERC

will

con

tinue

to p

ompr

ehen

sive

coor

do

scho

ols.

050100

Year

1N

=19

Perc

ent o

f SM

eeter

f t

heir

dive

rse

stre

ng

Conn

ectic

ut S

tate

De

ldre

n. 4

2(8)

ro

mot

e du

rabl

e sy

stem

s. P

syc h

Road

, Mid

dlet

own

man

ce M

easu

recu

t sch

ools

sust

aini

f PBI

S w

ith fi

delit

y

elin

e:

w

ith fi

delit

y is

mea

suio

n To

ol (S

ET).

The

Stu

res o

f PBI

S ac

ross

urn

the

curv

e:

hree

-yea

r tra

inin

g cy

scho

ols e

xpan

d pr

act

y in

terv

entio

ns.

com

preh

ensiv

e co

ach

proc

esse

s, a

nd a

sses

s

prov

ide

spec

ific

supp

inat

ion

of te

chni

cal a

Year

2N

=31

ERC/

UCo

nn P

BIS

ing

SET

2011

-201

2

Pos

itive

gt

hs a

nd n

eeds

, in

ord

epar

tmen

t of E

duca

ti

holo

gy in

the

Scho

ols.

47(1

)

, CT

0645

7

(8

6

e 2

ng im

plem

enta

tion

ured

ann

ually

by

SET

asse

sses

and

al

l sch

ool s

ettin

gs.

ycle

. Af

ter u

nive

rsal

tic

es to

incl

ude

hing

net

wor

k,

s sch

ools

by p

hase

s

port

thro

ugh

mor

e as

sista

nce

prov

ided

Year

3N

= 32

Scho

ols

2

Beha

vior

al In

der t

o in

crea

se st

ude

ion

(CSD

E) g

oal:

“All

60) 6

32-1

485

Pe

The

aver

age

num

day

per m

Stor

y be

hind

the

• Ag

greg

ated

dat

year

s acr

oss m

ide

crea

sing

by m

incr

ease

in h

igh

corr

elat

ed w

ithpa

rtic

ipat

ing

in

• Hi

stor

ical

ly, t

heBl

ack

stud

ents

ico

nstit

uted

13.

4po

pula

tion

but

refe

rred

. Pr

opos

ed a

ctio

n•

The

Scho

ol-w

idtr

ack

ODR

dat

a on

the

resu

lts.

• Cr

eate

and

imp

can

shar

e th

eir

prof

essio

nals

ar

00.

20.

40.

60.

811.

21.

4

K-6

Grad 6-

9

Stat

ewid pe

rnter

vent

ions

en

t ach

ieve

men

t in

a

Conn

ectic

ut L

earn

er

ww

w.c

tser

c.or

g

erfo

rman

ce M

em

ber o

f Offi

ce D

iscip

mon

th fr

om C

onne

ct

e ba

selin

e:

ta

dep

ict a

dec

reas

e i

ddle

gra

de le

vels,

wi

mor

e th

an 5

0% si

nce

h sc

hool

and

K-8

ODR

the

incr

ease

in th

e n

PBIS

with

SER

C an

d e

larg

est o

verr

epre

sein

ele

men

tary

scho

o4%

of t

he to

tal e

lem

ere

pres

ente

d 26

.6%

o

ns to

turn

the

curv

e In

form

atio

n Sy

stem

by e

thni

city

and

dev

lem

ent a

mod

el si

tes

syst

ems a

nd p

ract

ice

roun

d th

e st

ate.

des

9Gr

ades

9-12

K (8

-12)

de O

ffice

Dis

cipl

inr 1

00 st

uden

ts p

eand

Supp

orts

a pr

edic

tabl

e, sa

fe,

s Suc

ceed

and

Lea

ve

easu

re 3

lin

e Re

ferr

als (

ODR

s)ic

ut P

BIS

scho

ols.

in O

DRs o

ver t

he p

asth

mid

dle

scho

ol re

feim

plem

enta

tion.

The

R da

ta is

dire

ctly

nu

mbe

r of s

choo

ls U

Conn

. nt

atio

n w

as fo

und

als.

Bla

ck st

uden

ts

enta

ry st

uden

t of

the

stud

ents

bei

ng

e:

m (S

WIS

) will

be

used

velo

p ac

tion

plan

s ba

s pro

gram

whe

re sc

hes

with

oth

er

ne R

efer

rals

er

Day

2007

-200

8

2008

-200

9

2009

-201

0

2010

-201

1

2011

-201

2

s

Appendix B

) per

st fi

ve

erra

ls e m

ong

g d to

se

d

hool

s


SERC

Documents

Winter/Spring 2011-2012 SERC · All Grade Levels, 2010-2011 17 Figure R: Percentage Office Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity, Connecticut Schools, All Grade Levels, 2011-2012 18 What