Previous Article / Next Article

Skills for Success: A Three-Tiered Approach to Positive Behavior Supports

By Jeffrey Sprague and Vicki Nishioka

Many students who are at-risk leave school without diplomas and ill-prepared to function as productive adults (Kasen, Cohen, & Brooks, 1998). In addition to the problem of school dropout, students who experience academic difficulties are at-risk for becoming involved in juvenile crime (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985) and for behavior problems at school. Students who are at-risk often come to school with emotional and behavioral difficulties that interfere with their attempts to focus on academic instruction. Others may experience interpersonal issues with other students or school staff that make concentrating on learning difficult. Best practice for these students begins with early identification of emotional, behavioral, and interpersonal needs, followed by interventions to reduce obstacles to successful school adjustment. If appropriate educational and behavioral supports were more widely provided, the long-term benefits would greatly exceed the costs (Alternbaugh, Engel, & Martin, 1995).

In response to this need, the University of Oregon Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior created a pilot program called Skills for Success (SFS) that combined school-wide positive behavior supports with specialized supports for students who are at-risk in the school. Two middle schools (grades 6-8) from the same urban school district located in the northwest region of the United States participated in a treatment and comparison school study for two years. Both middle schools had high rates of student mobility, use of free/reduced lunch, and academic failure. Both middle schools adopted Best Behavior (Sprague & Golly, in press) and the Second Steps violence prevention curriculum (Committee for Children, 1997) as universal violence prevention procedures. In addition to these school-wide programs, the treatment school implemented Skills for Success, which provided further supports for those students identified as at-risk for school failure and academic problems (see Figure 1). These additional supports were in the form of specialized school-based services, family support services, and service coordination. At the end of the two years the rates of overt aggression, covert behavior, juvenile arrests, and authority conflicts were measured and changes assessed by drawing upon data from office discipline referrals (type, frequency), self-reported perpetration of and victimization by aggressive or violent behavior, and juvenile department records. In the remainder of this article, the three categories of specialized services will be described, as well as the pilot program's outcomes.

School-Based Supports

Although we tailored services to meet the needs of individual students, we employed a general framework of evidence-based interventions in the schools. These school-based supports included adult mentoring, individualized social skills instruction, increased academic support, alternative discipline, and school-based case management:

• Adult mentorship. A critical goal of the SFS program was to build a connection between the student and the school. To accomplish this, SFS program staff and other adults in the school served as mentors. The SFS mentors met daily with their assigned students to foster a positive mentoring relationship. The mentors coached the students to make positive behavior changes in school, monitored their behavior and academic performance in school, and, most importantly, provided the presence of a trusted adult at school. We used a daily check-in system adapted from Check & Connect (Evelo et al., 1996), increased monitoring of students during the school day, a high ratio of positive to negative interactions with students placed at risk, and non-judgmental solution-focused responses to student problems.
• Academic services. The school-based SFS program services included specialized academic, social skills, and life skills instruction using multiple strategies to meet individual student needs. An important feature of the SFS program was a part-time classroom structured to provide positive behavior intervention, low student-to-teacher ratios, and research-based teaching strategies providing individual and small group instruction for the students who were at-risk. Curriculum areas addressed within the alternative classroom setting included functional life skills necessary for successful transition to responsible adult living (e.g. vocational, self-management, leisure, and independent living skills). Furthermore, SFS staff conducted intensive social skills training to include interpersonal communication, problem solving, coping with feelings, and making friends. Staff conducted social skills training in small group settings that included selected typical peers to enhance skill building and reduce stigmatization. Program staff provided students with individualized academic support in regular classroom settings, tutorial help with regular classroom assignments, basic skill instruction, and study skills training. Inclusion services in the regular classroom allowed SFS program staff to identify specific skills and strategies that each student could use to promote positive relationships with the teacher and other students. Likewise, assisting in the regular classroom provided the SFS program staff with opportunities to dialog and consult with regular classroom teachers.
• Alternative discipline. Alternative discipline services included a level system (i.e., a system specifying changing levels of supervision and independence in the school based on individual student behavior), frequent positive rewards, and individualized behavioral interventions that supported practice of positive social skills in regular school settings. If necessary, SFS staff conducted a functional behavioral assessment to develop individualized behavior support plans. Consequently, student behavior support plans considered the function of – or reason why – the student used the problem behavior, taught appropriate replacement skills for socially unacceptable behavior, and taught self-management skills (O'Neill, Horner, Albin, Story, Sprague, & Newton, 1997).
• School-based case management. School-based case management services helped students obtain education and training that increased success in school, vocational, and community settings. Educational goals included increased social skills training, functional life skills training, vocational instruction, community training, and academic support. Each SFS program staff member was a case manager for five or six students, with whom they met daily.

Family Support

Many students placed in the SFS program required more comprehensive services to support their success in school and the community. The families of these students often had difficulty providing the supervision and stability required to adequately support their child in school. Moreover, the chronic patterns of adverse life events they experienced on a daily basis often made school attendance and academic success a low priority. Given this, a primary goal of SFS family support services was to build collaborative partnerships between the student's family and the school to increase parental involvement in school. The SFS program staff coordinated all school contact to minimize parent confusion and provided parents with daily reports regarding their child's school progress. Additionally, the SFS staff worked collaboratively with parents to build school/home interventions that increased positive relationships, limit setting, monitoring, praise, and constructive problem-solving – factors that reduce the likelihood of school and community failure for students who are at-risk. In essence, the SFS case manager became an ally to the parent in managing the many needs of their child.

Service Coordination

For some students, the SFS staff matched community services to individual student and family needs. Staff developed a program service plan with the student, their parents, and involved community agency representatives. The purpose of this service plan was to organize systematic and integrated services across school, home, and community settings that would assist students in reducing anti-social behavior and increase positive school engagement. The purpose of service coordination was to build linkages to community agencies that ensured students had stable adult mentoring relationships, shelter, food, safety, and medical care. Moreover, SFS program staff worked collaboratively with community agencies to increase after-school supervision, encourage activities with non-delinquent peers, and build mental health support for students in managing the many stressful events of their day-to-day life.

Effectiveness of Skills for Success

Both the treatment and comparison schools showed a reduction in the relative percentage of total overt aggression and covert behavior over the course of the two-year study. The treatment school showed a higher reduction (35%) in overt aggression than the comparison school (26%), a reduction that was statistically significant (p<.01).

Moreover, the frequency and severity of juvenile arrests for students served by the SFS alternative program was much lower than an equivalent control group in the comparison school. Prior to placement, the SFS group had over twice as many students with juvenile arrest histories and, as a whole, committed more crime than the comparison group. However, post-placement arrest data indicated only a 10% increase in frequency and severity of arrests for the SFS group (two arrests during intervention) as compared to a substantial increase for the comparison group (264% or 40 arrests).

Both schools showed an increase in the relative percentage of authority conflict behaviors (i.e., defiance, disruption, and school attendance), with the treatment school showing an increase of 9% as opposed to one of 20% for the comparison school. An increase in authority conflict behaviors in both schools may be attributed to normal adolescent adjustment and attempts at independence. The lower increase in the treatment school can be attributed to the additional supports provided to the students who were at-risk.

This pilot program provides promising results that support the combined use of school-wide interventions with individual student interventions for students who are at-risk. Further, the application of universal screening to middle school programs may assist in early identification and, in turn, increased school services for students at-risk for school failure and antisocial behavior.

References

Altenbaugh, R. J., Engel, D. E., & Martin, D. T. (1995). Caring for kids: A critical study of urban school leavers. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Committee for Children (1997). Second steps middle school curriculum. Seattle: Committee for Children.

Evelo, D., Sinclair, M., Hurley, C., Christenson, S., Thurlow, M. (1996). Keeping kids in school: Using check and connect for dropout prevention. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.

Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1985). Victimization in schools. New York: Plenum.

Kasen, S., Cohen, P. & Brooks, J. S. (1998). Adolescent school experiences and dropout, adolescent pregnancy, and young adult deviant behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13(1), 49-72.

O'Neill, R.E., Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., Newton, S., & Storey, K. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. Second edition. Pacific Grove CA: Brookes/Cole Publishing.

Sprague, J.R., & Golly, A. (in press). Best behavior: Building positive behavior supports in schools. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing anti-social behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194-209.

Jeffrey Sprague is Co-Director and Vicki Nishioka is Research Associate, with the University of Oregon Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, Eugene. They may be reached at 541/346-3592, or at jsprague56@aol.com or vnishioka@aol.com.

Top

Previous Article / Next Article

__________

Citation: Gaylord, V., Johnson, D.R., Lehr, C.A., Bremer, C.D. & Hasazi, S. (Eds.). (2004). Impact: Feature Issue on Achieving Secondary Education and Transition Results for Students with Disabilities, 16(3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Available from http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/163.

__________

The print design version (PDF, 671 K, 36 pp.) of this issue of Impact is also available for free, complete with the color layout and photographs. This version looks the most like the newsletter as it was printed.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.