Presented By:

Jamie Carpenter
Greg Hutchings
Bronwyn MacFarlane
Holly Richard

Power Point
Presentation On Gender in Education

Travis Burns
Antoine Hickman
Patricia Kern
Shelly Nowacek

Power Point
Presentation On Special Education

Webmaster:
Jamie Carpenter

Discipline

In today's society, teachers and administrators face discipline problems on a daily basis. Many educators feel that aggressive and defiant behaviors have reached a critical level throughout the country. With the rise in aggressive and defiant behaviors, many parents, students, and lawmakers expect school administrators to adopt “zero-tolerance” policies. Mandates by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), as well as federal and state regulations have been developed pertaining to the education and discipline of students with disabilities. In order to meet the educational needs of all students, educators across the country are being forced to take a closer look at traditional disciplinary practices.

The purpose of this body of work is to provide examples of current practices for disciplining students with disabilities to determine which approaches work and which approaches appear to have little or no impact on non-compliant behaviors.

Traditional Disciplinary Actions

Current studies indicate that punitive and reactive disciplinary actions may actually heighten the quantity and severity of the non-compliant behaviors that they are intended to diminish (Safran & Oswald, 2003). As legislation continues to be passed, administrators are faced with the increased dilemma of how to maintain a safe learning environment and provide quality instruction for all students. Before P.L.94-142 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, it was easier for students with disabilities to be removed from the educational setting. Students who caused a disruption to the educational process received a variety of disciplinary exclusions including in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, or expulsion. However, research indicates that there is little evidence supporting the placement of disruptive students in alternative programs for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. These students obtain low grades, demonstrate a poor attendance rate, and are at risk of dropping out of school (Doerries, 2003). The use of negative consequences reinforces non-compliant behavior, decreases student achievement, and leaves students with behavioral problems behind (Doerries, 2003).

P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act passed in 1975, requires that all special education students receive a free, appropriate, public education in the least restrictive environment (Murdick, Gartin, & Crabtree, 2007). Procedural safeguards, which can be traced back to Honing v. Doe (1988), have been put into place to protect the rights of disabled students (Katsiyannis & Maag, 2001). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), passed in 1990, requires schools to examine a special education student's inappropriate behavior by conducting a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and subsequently develop a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) to address the inappropriate behavior ( Murdick, et.al., 2007). IDEA 1997 added the manifestation determination hearing to determine whether misconduct is a manifestation of the manifestation is due to inappropriate placement (Katsiyannis & Maag, 2001). The manifestation determination hearing is clarified in IDEA 2004.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 holds states, school divisions and individual schools accountable for the academic achievement for all children. Academic achievement is determined by measuring annual yearly progress (AYP). AYP includes the percentage of students demonstrating proficiency on each state's academic standards assessments, which encompasses special education students as one of the four sub-groups, as well as two additional identifiers. At the high school level, graduation rates are the required identifier. Elementary schools can choose either attendance rates or proficiency rates on science standards assessments as the second identifier (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2003). With increased accountability for the academic achievement for all students, educators are being forced to look at alternative disciplinary practices to keep students with behavioral problems in the classroom.

Alternative Approaches to Discipline

Positive behavior supports (PBS) are becoming a viable alternative to traditional disciplinary practices. Proponents of positive behavior supports, based on the foundations of applied behavioral analysis, view behavior as an interaction between an individual and the environment rather than a behavior existing solely within that individual (Safran & Oswald, 2003). Positive behavior supports are designed to be proactive. Inappropriate behaviors are prevented by altering a situation before a problem escalates while simultaneously teaching appropriate alternative behaviors. IDEA requires school divisions to use PBS with all students who demonstrate problematic behaviors that put them at risk, and not just with students with disabilities (Safran & Oswald, 2003). To implement PBS requires teachers, administrators, and support personnel form school-based collaborative teams working together to analyze data to plan four basic levels of support. The four levels of support generally consist of: (1) schoolwide or universal supports such as violence prevention programs; (2) support for transition areas within the school such as hallways, the cafeteria, and buses; (3) individual classrooms or specific groups of students such as athletic groups and clubs; and (4) individual support programs for students with chronic behavior problems (Safran & Oswald, 2003).

Positive behavior support systems cannot be universally developed. These systems must be designed to meet the specific needs of the students exhibiting inappropriate behaviors. However, effective PBS appear to include some or all of the following components: collecting and assessing data on problematic behaviors, addressing students' learning and motivational difficulties, providing social skills instruction, encouraging family collaboration and communication, building relationships with students, developing students' self-esteem, teaching students to use self-management interventions, establishing and teaching rules, giving students' choices, and providing staff development on intervention strategies (Salend & Sylvestre, 2005).

Currently, there is limited research data available to measure the impact that positive behavior supports have had on reducing aggressive and delinquent behaviors in schools. Safran & Oswald (2003) found that there is evidence supporting the use of PBS with individual students. Safran & Oswald (2003) provided data indicating that a significant number of students with behavior problems have demonstrated an increase in positive behaviors with the use of PBS. Less information was available to indicate the effectiveness of implementing school-wide PBS to increase positive student behavior. However, at the completion of their investigations, Safran & Oswald (2003) concluded that there are several reasons to advocate school-based positive behavior supports. Schools have the number of office referrals, tardies, attendance record, etc. available for collaborative teams to establish preintervention baselines. Schools have seen a reduction in disruptive behaviors with the use of PBS for transition areas such as, hallways, playgrounds, and the cafeteria. Finally, there is no one model to fit all schools. Therefore, each school's collaborative team has the flexibility to design positive behavior supports to meet the specific needs of the students being served.

Conclusion