Can Discipline Referrals Be Reduced by Functional Behavioral Assessments?
Tary Tobin and Emma Martin
University of Oregon
Poster Presentation, Council for Exceptional Children Conference, Kansas City, MO, April, 2001
This report covers one aspect of a larger research
project, “Using Teamwork to Plan Systematic and Functional Environments for
Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders”(Grant #H324N980024, U.S.
Department of Education, no official endorsement should be assumed). The goal
of this project is to develop and test a practical approach to the
identification of, and intervention with, students who have, or are at risk
for, emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). The project has come to be
called
Individual Effective Behavior Support (IEBS) because it is based on
the concept of the Individual System within Effective Behavior Support (EBS)
(Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin,1998; Smith & Sugai,
2000; Sprague, Sugai, & Walker, 1998; Sugai, 1996; Sugai & Horner,
1999; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan, 1998; Todd, Horner, Sugai, &
Colvin, 1999; Todd, Horner, Sugai, & Sprague, 1999).
The study started in the Fall of 1998 and will continue
through the Summer of 2001. The setting is the Northwestern part of the U.S.
Six schools were involved and all served students at the elementary level. Five
schools were in one district in a medium sized city and one was in a rural
district. The current report includes data for the 28 students in the city
district whose teachers (or their educational assistants) participated during
the second or third year of the project and whose parents had given permissions
for participation in the project. There were 24 males and 4 females. More than
half of the students (57%, or 16) were in the primary grades (K – 3), with nine
students being in Grade 1. Most of the students did not have any discipline
referrals (i.e., no record of having been sent to the school administrator for
discipline due to a behavior problem) although they did have behavior problems
that concerned the classroom teachers.
The independent variable was a training program for
elementary school teachers and educational assistants in functional assessment
and intervention, called Individualized Positive Support (IPS).
Participating school staff earned continuing education credits for attending
IPS classes every week for one hour after school. The first two years of the project,
training was held Winter and Spring terms. The third year, the training was (a)
streamlined, condensed, and provided at a faster pace; (b) provided Fall term; and (c) expanded to
include a parent component (Tobin & von Ravensberg, 2001). The specific
form the instruction took evolved throughout the project, in part due to
interest in the many new materials being developed for staff development in
this area and in part in response to what we were learning about the needs and
interests of participating school staff. Throughout the project, many resources
were tapped, including both print (e.g., Center for Effective Collaboration and
Practice, 1998; Fad, Patton, & Polloway, 2000; Hall & Hall, 1998a,
1998b; O’Neill et al., 1997; Rolinder & Axelrod, 2000; Tobin,1994; Witt,
Daly, & Noell, 2000) and digital formats, such as, cd-roms (Liaupsin,
Scott, & Nelson, 2000), software programs (Hofmeister et al., 1999), and
Web sites (e.g., http://brt.uoregon.edu/ebs, http://pbis.org, http://www.air-dc.org/cecp/fba/default.htm.
However, the content remained essentially the same. Teachers learned basic
functional assessment methods: (a) gathering information by interviewing
students, parents, and school staff, and by reviewing school records or filling
out rating scales; (b) direct observations of behavioral sequences, and (c)
developing hypotheses and competing behavior analyses. Second, they learned how
to use the information from the functional assessment to develop and use
positive, individualized interventions.
As a result of the IPS project, a model for in-service
training for classroom teachers and educational assistants developed which
includes providing materials and professional development and/or college credit
for participation. Trainees are asked to (a) study print and/or digital
materials related to functional assessment and intervention, (b) identify a
particular student for whom they will conduct a functional assessment and
develop a positive, individualized behavior plan based on the functional assessment
(or work with others to do this), (c) complete a Competing Behaviors Analysis,
including brainstorming related, potential interventions (O’Neill et al., 1997,
Appendix G), (d) participate in team-style meetings led by a behavior
specialist and including fellow school staff members, usually about six people,
who also are involved in the training), and (e) develop, try out, and report
back on the results of a specific behavior support plan based the functional
assessment. Participants sit in a circle or around a table to facilitate
discussion. The typical format for the hour long meetings is (a) a quick check
around the group to see if anyone has a pressing concern or something they want to share, (b) a brief
(about 15 to 25 minutes) verbal explanation of new content (which is also
provided in print and/or digital form) with an opportunity for questions,
discussion, or illustration of how to use new materials or of how to do the
expected assignments, and, (c) time for more detailed discussion of their efforts
and experiences by participants who want to talk and are interested in listening to other’s suggestions. In addition, participants who provided the
functional assessment information needed for the Functional Assessment
Intervention Program (FAIP) (Hoffmeister et al., 1999), were given a print-out
of the summary and recommended, function-based strategies generated by that software program.
Discipline referrals were an important dependent
variable. The first year of the project, the schools involved all depended
on a paper management system to document discipline referrals.
Computer-generated charts were prepared from discipline referral data. Chart
templates and directions for using and interpreting the charts of discipline
referrals were developed in the first year of the project (Tobin, 1999). Each
school received copies of these directions along with their charts, a
manuscript of an article on how to use this type of information in planning
interventions (Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 2000), and consultation regarding
their use, as needed, on an on-going basis. The charts illustrated aspects such
as, (a) monthly rate per day per 100 students; (b) types of infractions; (c)
types of consequences (e.g., suspension, detention); (c) percentages of the
student body receiving zero, one, and repeated referrals; and (d) students with
the highest number of referrals. These charts were well received by school
administrators and other staff members. EBS teams studied the charts and made
plans to share key information with the entire faculty.
In the second and third years of the project, the schools
started to use the School-Wide Information System (SWIS) (May et al., 2000), a
computerized program for recording and charting discipline referral data. When
school staff began to use SWIS, and to generate their own SWIS charts, they
understood how these charts could be used in the identification of students who
were at risk for school failure and likely candidates for functional assessment
and positive support. In addition, in cases where a behavior plan for an
individual student already was in place, staff were trained in the use of data
now readily generated by SWIS individual student reports to supplement other
types of data in making decisions.
The remainder of the current report will focus on the change
in discipline referral rates (number of referrals divided by number of days
per phase) for eight students who had discipline referrals and for whom
functional assessment led to individualized, positive interventions (see Figure
1). The phases were (a) before the teachers’ in-service and (b) after
the teachers’ in-service training. Seven of the eight students decreased their
referral rates after their teachers participated in IPS. One student, who had
not been referred for discipline problems before the IPS training, was sent to
the principal’s office after the IPS training. Of the seven who decreased their
referral rates, six had zero referrals during the follow-up period for this
study, which, at the time of this writing, ranged from two to six months
(depending on which school year the teacher participated in the training). The
current report presents preliminary results as the project is still continuing.
In the following sections, a description of events is provided for each of the
eight students with discipline referrals, using code numbers instead of names
to protect confidentiality. The students are presented in the order listed in
the legend of Figure 1.
Figure 1. Discipline referral rates for 8 students before and after
their teachers study functional assessment and individualized positive
support.
Student 1.
Student 1 was selected two years in a row for functional assessments. In
fourth grade, his teacher was alarmed by his defiant attitude, especially when
he refused to work on his assignments and refused to follow directions to go to
the principal’s office. One time he caused a major classroom disruption by
“going limp” (like a protestor) when two male staff members came removed him by
force. Fortunately, he responded well to the function-based support the teacher
tried as a part of the IPS project. Her interventions included making
assignments less aversive by offering choices and making following directions
less aversive by (a) improving the teacher-student relationship, which the
teacher decided to do by finding opportunities to talk with the student in a
pleasant way about topics other than his school work and (b) using the “Attention
Training System” (ATS) (Gordon Systems, 1987; Polaha & Allen, 2000) and
other behavioral interventions. ATS is
a battery operated module that displays points being earned (per minute or per
4 minutes) when on-task. When an agreed upon number of points is earned, the
student will be able to do something special that he and the teacher have
planned, such as, play an educational computer game for 5 minutes. If the
student is off-task, the teacher can use a remote control to subtract a point
and send a visual but silent signal to the student to get back on task.
Although Student 1 made progress in fourth grade, the next year, his fifth
grade teacher felt that, even though discipline referrals were not a problem,
the student continued to need function-based support due to disruptive
behaviors that were minor yet occurring too frequently. The fifth grade teacher
conducted another functional assessment and decided that the student’s
situation was different. He no longer was refusing to work or follow directions.
However, he was talking out too often, apparently in order to gain the
teacher’s attention, even if that attention involved being asked not to talk
out. The fifth grade teacher’s function-based support included (a) withholding
attention immediately after talk outs; (b) increasing positive attention at
other times, especially when the student was on-task (including attention in
the form of teacher proximity and nonverbal communication such as eye contact
and smiles) and taking time to chat with the student about topics of interest
after school or at recess and (c) reminders of the expected behavior given
before class.
Student 13.
An Educational Assistant who worked with Student 13 participated in the
IPS in-service training. His discipline referrals often were for defiance or
disruption when he was in Grade 2. The
functional assessment indicated two main behavior problems, with different
functions. First, he ignored directions to change activities when involved in a
preferred activity. In this way, he often managed to continue with the
preferred task even though he was disrupting the classroom schedule. Second, it
was predictable that he would be defiant with substitute teachers and that this
would be followed by both peer and adult attention. Function-based support for
the first problem was to teach the student to ask if he could finish his
preferred activity at recess and to provide praise for asking and for stopping
when told to do so. In addition, if he did not follow directions, he lost the
next opportunity to engage in the preferred activity. For the second problem,
he was given a special “helper” position in which he was able to help the
substitute. School staff worked together and with substitutes in advance to
plan (a) how to teach him something he could do that would be helpful to a
substitute and (b) how the substitute could reinforce the student’s appropriate
behavior. Although these classroom interventions were effective in
achieving their purposes and in reducing the student’s rate of discipline
referrals, he is now having some other behavior problems on the playground
(e.g., unsafe, touching others). So far, these behaviors are relatively minor
and have resulted in warnings, not discipline referrals. However, it suggests
that a functional assessment of the playground situation is in order.
Student 27.
An Educational Assistant who worked with Student 27 participated in the
IPS in-service training. Although the EA did not complete the entire IPS
program, she completed a functional assessment which included (a) direct
observations in five settings, (b) interviews with three school staff members
and with the student (using questions from O’Neill et al., 1997), (c) a summary
statement and competing behaviors analysis, and (d) suggested strategies (e.g.,
shorten, breakdown, or modify assignments; keep distracting things away; be
sure you have the student’s attention before giving a direction; provide
opportunities to earn activities such as being able to film an assembly or be
involved in school dramas). Student 27 was in Grade 5 at the time the
functional assessment was conducted and he received one discipline for fighting
on the playground during the IPS in-service training. However, he has not
received any discipline referrals since then (none for the last five months).
In the past, his discipline referrals were usually for noncompliance with
directions to work in the classroom and that is the behavior that was addressed
in the functional assessment.
Student 3.
Student 3 was in the fifth grade when his teacher participated in the
IPS program. This teacher’s previous favorite method of discipline was to tell
students to write a certain number of sentences, as a punishment. At the
beginning of the IPS training, she said that Student 3 “owed” her hundreds of
sentences. She was looking for something more effective. The teacher conducted,
by herself, a functional assessment which included (a) the Functional
Assessment Classroom Rating Scale (Tobin, 1994, 2001), (b) a student interview,
and (c) a competing behaviors analysis from O’Neill et al. (1997). The behavior
support plan the teacher developed was based on her reading of Witt, Daly,
& Noell (2000), which is a guide to functional assessment and intervention
designed for school counselors and psychologists yet appealing to many teachers
as well. The student’s primary behavior problem was being disruptive (talking
out, out of seat) in class and it was maintained by both peer and teacher
attention. The teacher designed a multi-component intervention that included
(a) antecedent manipulations: reminders of expectations before transitions,
extra assignments that would be particularly interesting to this student (e.g.,
asking him to work on writing up a plan for a skit or a comedy routine if he
finished his regular work early), moving him away from peers most likely to
engage in inappropriate talk with him during class; (b) have the school
counselor teach the student some things that he could do to gain attention
appropriately and practice with him (e.g., prepare a demonstration, take lunch
count); (c) provide opportunities for the student to earn praise, privileges,
or other reinforcers by appropriate behavior. This teacher also used the
Attention Training System sometimes as a part of her intervention. Although
Student 3’s classroom behavior improved and he has not received any discipline
referrals since the IPS program, he did receive 2 warnings for rudeness on
the playground during the IPS training. As with Students 13 and 27, it
appears that a classroom intervention
will not necessarily affect a playground situation.
Student 6.
Student 6, a fourth grader, had been identified as “Emotionally
Disturbed” and his teacher reported
that participating in the IPS program was very helpful when it was time to revise
the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). This student had many
different kinds of behavior problems but the one selected for assessment and
intervention first was extremely disruptive behavior, especially with
substitute teachers. Because the function appeared to be to escape being in the
classroom with the substitute, the intervention selected was to teach Student 6
that he had an option to politely excuse himself from the classroom if he felt
if was necessary when there was a substitute. Arrangements were made in advance
for a safe place for the student to go. The plan was practiced with the student
and explained to substitutes. In addition, the student was able to earn a “day
off’ from penmanship if he followed the plan correctly.
Student 12. Student 12 was in Grade 1 when an EA
who was assigned to work with him participated in the project. At the same
time, it was discovered that the student was diabetic and that it would be
necessary to work with the school nurse regarding medical issues. The
functional assessment included interviews with student, parent, classroom
teacher, and school counselor; observations on four different days, and a
competing behavior analysis. The different informants did not agree; some said
his disruptive and noncompliant behavior functioned to avoid work and others
thought it was for attention. The observations suggested that both of those
functions were important. A range of possible strategies were considered and
four were chosen: (a) change seating, (b) improve teaching of behavioral
expectations but go over them with the whole group that the student is in, not
just Student 12, (c) teach the student to make eye contact with the teacher
more often, and (d) increase the frequency and amount of positive feedback that
is given to the student when he behaves appropriately. In addition, in case of
a crisis, such as serious disruptive or noncompliant behavior, the school staff
decided on a place (e.g., a chair in the back of the room) where the student
could go that would be away from his group where he could compose himself and
then return to the group. This option was explained to him and rehearsed.
Student 28. Student 28 had been
removed from his parents’ home and placed in foster care. He had received counseling
for anger management. When he was in Grade 3, his teacher participated in the
IPS in-service training, seeking help with two behavior problems: (a) physical
aggression and (b) “fits” or episodes loud crying. Student 28’s discipline
referrals were for fighting. The functional assessment indicated that hitting
and kicking were predictable responses to provocations from peers (e.g., verbal
abuse, shoving, pushing). The crying “fits” seemed to be used primarily to
escape difficult academic tasks although also might occur if the student did
not getting any attention for 15 minutes or more. The interventions selected
for these problems built on socially appropriate skills that Student 28 already
had learned but was not using frequently or fluently: (a) talking out problems
and (b) asking for help from staff to problem solve. The teacher and other
adults made an effort to prompt, encourage, and reinforce Student 28 (and other
students) for using these skills more often. In addition, the teacher made efforts
to (a) reduce the level of verbal
abuse, pushing, and shoving that was occurring among all the students and (b) ask Student 28 if he understood
instructions or needed extra time for assignments. These interventions were
effective in reducing both behavior problems.
Student 19. Student 19 was a first grade student
who had not received any discipline referrals in kindergarten or during the
first term of first grade. However, in the second half of that school year he
was warned often about minor misbehavior on the playground, such as not keeping
his hands and feet to himself. He also received a discipline referral for
disruptive and defiant behavior in the classroom. In Grade 2, he received a
discipline referral for inappropriate language in the cafeteria. This student’s
teacher, unlike the other teachers and educational assistants discussed above,
who were successful in conducting functional assessments and developing related
positive interventions that reduced behavior and discipline problems, depended
on a brief self-monitoring intervention developed by someone else as her
intervention. Although the teacher worked with Student 19 to learn and use the
self-monitoring intervention, and it was effective when used, it was not enough
to reduce the behavior problems throughout the day and over time. The
functional assessment indicated that the student’s disruptive behaviors were
maintained in part by negative adult attention and also were occurring in part
because the student had not learned “school survival” skills (Walker, 1995) nor
been sufficiently reinforced for appropriate behavior. It appears that the
intervention needs to be expanded or revised.
Although more research is needed, we conclude that
functional behavioral assessment can reduce discipline referrals if the
teachers and educational assistants who will be implementing function-based
support are (a) involved in the assessment process and in planning the
intervention, and (b) are trained, provided with resources, and supported in
their efforts.
References
Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice. (1998). Addressing
student problem behavior: An IEP team’s introduction to functional behavioral
assessment and behavior intervention plans. Chesapeake Institute:
Washington, DC
Condon, K. A., & Tobin, T. J. (In review). Designing
individualized behavior support: How to use functional behavioral assessment
information. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Fad, K. M., Patton, J. R., & Polloway, E. A. (2000). Behavioral
intervention planning: Completing a functional behavioral assessment and
developing a behavioral intervention plan, (Revised Edition). Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Gordon, M., Thomason, D., Cooper, S., & Ivers, C. L.
(1991). Nonmedical treatment of ADHD/Hyperactivity: The Attention Training
System. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 151-159.
Hall, R. V., & Hall, M. L. (1998a). How to use
planned ignoring (extinction), 2nd edition.
Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Hall, R. V., & Hall, M. L. (1998b). How to use
systematic attention and approval, 2nd edition. Austin, TX:
PRO-ED
Hofmeister, A., Althouse, B., Morgan, D. P., Reavis, H.
K., Likins, M., & Jensen, W. R. (1999). Functional Assessment
Intervention Program (FAIP): Software that makes conducting FBAs easier.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective Behavior
Support: A systems approach to proactive school-wide management. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1-24.
Lewis, T. J, Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing
problem behavior through a school-side system of effective behavioral support:
Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual
interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.
Liaupsin, C. J., Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M.
(2000). Functional behavioral assessment: An interactive training module:
User’s manual and facilitator’s guide, 2nd edition. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West. [ ]
Martin, E. J., Hagan, S., & Tobin, T. J. (In review).
Behavior support protocol: Using functional assessments systematically to
create effective and teacher-friendly interventions. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
May, S., Ard, B., Todd, A., Horner, R., Glasgow, A.,
Sugai, G., Sprague, J. (2000). Becoming swift at SWIS: Learning to use the
school-wide information system: User’s Manual. Eugene: University of
Oregon, College of Education, OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports.[To preview, see http://www.swis.org/swis and enter username
“ebs” and password “ebs”]
O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K.,
Sprague, J. R., & Newton, M. (1997). Functional assessment and program
development for problem behavior: A practical handbook, 2nd ed. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Polaha, J. A., & Allen, K. D. (2000). Using
technology to automate off-task behavior: Classroom behavior management made
simple. Proven Practice, 2, 52-56.
Rolider, A., & Axelrod, S. (2000). How to teach
self-control through trigger analysis. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Smith, B. W., & Sugai, G. (2000). A self-management
functional assessment-based behavior support plan for a middle school student
with EBD. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 208-217.
Sprague, J., Sugai, G., & Walker, H. (1998). Antisocial
behavior in schools. In S. Watson & F. Gresham (Eds.), Child behavior
therapy: Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and evaluation (pp.
451-474). New York: Plenum Press.
Sugai, G. (1996). Providing effective behavior support to
all students: Procedures and processes. SAIL, 11(1), 1-4.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Discipline and
behavioral support: Preferred processes and practices. Effective School
Practices, 17(4), 10-22.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., &
Sprague, J. (1999). Functional assessment-based behavior support planning:
Research-to-practice-to-research. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 223-227.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998).
Using functional assessments to develop behavior support plans. Preventing
School Failure, 43(1), 6-13.
Sugai, G., & Tobin, T. J. (2000). Sugai-Tobin
review of interventions in versatile environments (STRIVE). Unpublished
Instrument. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Sugai, G., & Tobin, T. J. (2001). Sugai-Tobin
archival review for kindergarten, elementary, and/or middle school, revised
(STAR-KEM, R). Unpublished Instrument. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Tobin, T. J. (1994). Behavior challenges: A teacher’s
guide to functional assessment. University of Oregon, College of Education,
Behavior Disorders Program, Eugene.
Tobin, T. J. (2000). Function-Based support in
schools: Summaries of research examples. [On-line]. Available: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ttobin,
click on “Casebook.”
Tobin, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Collecting valid
and reliable information from school records: A training manual for data
collectors. Unpublished manuscript. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Tobin, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (2000). Using
discipline referrals to make decisions. NAASP Bulletin, 84(616),
106-117.
Tobin, T. J., & von Ravensberg, H. (2001). Parents’
guide to functional assessment and support. University of Oregon, College
of Education, Educational and Community Supports, Eugene. [Also
available on line: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ttobin, click on
“PARENTS”]
Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G.
(1999). Individualizing school-wide discipline for students with chronic
problem behaviors: A team approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4),
72-82.
Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J.
R. (1999). Effective behavior support: Strengthening school-wide systems
through a team-based approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 23-27.
Walker, H. M. (1995). The acting out child: Coping
with classroom disruption (Second edition) .Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Witt, J. C., Daly, E. M., & Noell, G. (2000). Functional
assessments: A step-by-step guide to solving academic and behavior problems.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.