ICS Equity Plus Digital Module X/Step X: Behavioral Digital Module for Student Support Plans

Current school district practices are based on an underlying assumption that something is wrong with the child, versus relocating the problem (Kunc, 2016)[1] and analyzing the educational system practices. National and individual schools’ data are clear about who is disproportionally disciplined and who is not. Below we review the common assumptions of a deficit-based system, as well as Restorative Justice practices and Proactive Behavior Intervention Systems.

2. What Does the Data Say?

According to the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (May 2021)[2] the following findings occur across the schools in the United States:

• Black students, who accounted for 15.1% of total student enrollment, were expelled at rates that were more than twice their share of total student enrollment, receiving 38.8% of expulsions with educational services and 33.3% of expulsions without educational services.
• American Indian or Alaska Native students were expelled at rates (1.1% and 1.8%) that were higher than their share of total student enrollment (1.0%).

Figure 1: Expulsions by Race With and Without Educational Services

Students who are Black are suspended or expelled at increasing rates by the severity of disciplinary action received compared to the percentage of students within that student racial group. While the data for white students is the exact opposite, as the percentage of students who are white decreases by the severity of disciplinary action received compared to the percent of students within that student racial group.

This occurs for students as young as three years of age in our public schools across the United States. Students who are Black receive out-of-school suspensions at alarmingly increasing rates relative to the percentage of students within that student racial group. While the data for white students from three to four years old is the exact opposite; as the percentage of students who are white decreases relative to the percent of students within that student racial group (U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, May 2021).

Figure 2: Preschool Enrollment Rates by Race Compared to One or More Out-of-School Suspensions

• In 2017-18 in the U.S., 2,822 pre-school students received one or more out-of-school suspensions.
• Black pre-school students accounted for 18.2% of total pre-school enrollment, but received 43.3% of out-of-school suspensions.
• Multi-racial pre-school students accounted for 4.1% of total pre-school enrollment, but received 6.5% of out-of-school suspensions.
• American Indian or Alaska Native pre-school students accounted for 1.1% of total pre-school enrollment, but received 1.7% of out-of-school suspensions.

Figure 3: Enrollment of Students with Disabilities Compared to Expulsions Received With and Without Educational Services

• Across the United States in 2017-18, students with disabilities being served under IDEA represented 13.2% of the total student enrollment and received 23.3% of all expulsions with educational services and 14.8% of all expulsions without education services.

As discussed in Digital Module 4, current district data is one element of research included through data collection using the equity audit in Digital Module 6. For example, the following data is typical of most districts the first time they collect their data and at the beginning of the ICS Equity process.. We are including example behavioral data collected by an ICS district to demonstrate the equity audit data collection process specific to discipline and proportional representation.

For example, students who are receiving free/reduced price lunch are over-identified in receiving disciplinary actions with 67.1% of in-school suspensions and 73.5% of out-of-school suspensions received by students who are receiving free/reduced priced lunch. Of students who were expelled, 85.7% (6 out of 7) were students receiving free/reduced priced lunch.

 

Students who receive free/reduced priced lunch are also over-represented in having low attendance or truancy at 40.5%.

Figure 4: Students Receiving Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Disciplinary Actions, and Attendance

 

Of the 411 students identified for out-of-school suspensions (OSS) in this district, 70.1% are students of color (compared to 37.7% of the district) with white students receiving 29.9% of out-of-school suspensions (compared to 62.3% of the district). That is, if you are a student of color, you are nearly twice as likely to receive an out-of-school suspension compared to a white student who is about half as likely to receive an out-of-school suspension.

Comparable to the U.S. data, among the out-of-school suspensions, Black students are over-identified more than any other racial group (receiving 45% of out-of-school suspensions, compared to 10.1% of the district). Students who are multi-racial are also over-identified for receiving out-of-school suspensions (receiving 14.8% of out-of-school suspensions, compared to 8.3% of the district), while Hispanic students are slightly over-identified for out-of-school suspensions (receiving 9.3% of out-of-school suspensions, 9.1% of the district). White students are again the only racial group that is under-identified for out-of-school suspensions (receiving 29.9% of out-of-school suspensions, 62.3% of the district).

Figure 5: Students of Color Over-Identified for Suspensions

 

Yet only 9 students or less than 1% (.8%) of students enrolled in advanced courses at the middle/high school are students receiving ELL services. Only 4 students of the 619 high school students completing Advanced Placement exams were students also receiving ELL services and of those 4 students, no students scored a 3 or higher.

Figure 6: Race/Ethnicity and Representation in Gifted

Of the 97 students in alternative education, 3 students (3.1%) are students who are also receiving ELL services. Students receiving special education services in the district (11.3%) are also over-identified within the alternative education placements, as of the 97 students placed in alternative settings, 21 students are students also receiving special education services (21.7%).

Figure 7: Representation in Alternative Setting

Such data clearly reinforces the importance of identity development and the ability to analyze equity data and move from deficit-based practices to assets-based practices. Therefore – we believe that student behavior and thus discipline is directly related to the culture of the district and school. As such, we have a choice to create school cultures that are cohesive rather than fragmented, holistic rather than self-serving, ethical rather than unethical, and where equity really means schools that are truly socially just.

In this district example, the district has over-identified students of color for in-school suspensions, as of the 526 students who received in-school suspensions, 343 students (65.2%) are students of color (compared to 37.7% in the district). Black students are over-identified for in-school suspensions more than any other racial group (receiving 37.3% of in-school suspensions, compared to making up 10.1% of the district). Multi-racial students are also over-identified for in-school suspensions (14.5% of in-school suspensions, compared to 8.3% of the district) as are Hispanic students (11.2% of in-school suspensions, 9.1% of the district). While White students are far more under-identified for in-school suspensions at 34.8% (compared to 62.3% of the district).

Students with disabilities are over-identified for in-school and out-of-school suspensions with 32.5% of in-school suspensions and 35.6% of out-of-school suspensions represented by students with disabilities who represent 11.3% of the district.

Figure 8: Representation in Discipline

Students who receive free/reduced priced lunch (27.4% of the district) are also over-represented in low attendance or truancy at 40.5%. Though students of color comprise 37.7% of the district, students of color represent 57.2% of students who have low attendance or who are truant. Black students comprise 10.1% of the district, but 24.4% of students who have low attendance or who are truant. Hispanic students comprise 9.1% of the district, but 14.7% of students who have low attendance or who are truant, while multi-racial students comprise 8.3% of the district’s students, but represent 11.3% of students who have low attendance or who are truant.

Students receiving English Language Learners (ELL) services (8.2%) are not over-represented as having low attendance/being truant, as they comprise 8.2% of students who are identified as having low attendance/being truant. However, students receiving special education services are over-represented as having low attendance or being truant with 21.9% of students identified as having low attendance or being truant also receiving special education services (compared to 11.3% of the district’s students receiving special education services).

Figure 9: Representation in Low Attendance/Truancy

In relation to discipline data, one focus group participant shared, “There is also an issue of trust between Black students and White teachers. When there is an issue with the Black student we tend to find the Black staff to make that connection.” Across the focus groups, many educators believed that the behavior data is improving. “The behavior data has improved, but most calls to the office are still [regarding] Black boys; our response to those calls and referrals are better and more centered on restoration of community as opposed to punitive measures like suspensions. [however] there is more work to do in the classroom to engage students.”

1. How Schools Perpetuate a Deficit-Based System

In Digital Module 1, we discussed the educational history of schools and the centuries-old practice of blame and labeling the child, seeing the child as broken, along with legislators and educators responding to increasingly diverse schools with segregated practices and removal from the core of teaching and learning. Such practices were premised on a white, cis-gender, able-bodied, middle class, and English-speaking normative.

As discussed in Digital Module 2, a deficit-based educational system and perceptions create a system with oppression and marginalization. In Digital Module 2, we used the identity of students/families experiencing poverty as an example, but a deficit-based lens regarding any identity (e.g., race, ability, language, gender, sexuality, and their intersections) results in low expectations. The research is clear, that low expectations, low-ability grouping, low tracked classes, and non-identity relevant instruction and curriculum, results in students receiving a stereotype threat. Such a stereotype threat (Steele, 2010)[3] has no impact on student achievement (Hattie & Zierer, 2019)[4], and thus results in students not being viewed as smart and capable.

Figure 10: How Schools Perpetuate Poverty and Low Expectations through a Deficit-Based Lens

As demonstrated in Figure 11 below, an assets-based lens has the ability to disrupt low expectations, low-ability grouping, low tracked classes, and non-identity relevant instruction and curriculum.

Figure 11: How Schools Can Disrupt Poverty and Low Expectations Through and Assets-Based Lens

Irby (2013)[5] describes the net-deepening effect and net-widening effect occurring within our schools today, specifically, “Net-deepening refers to the likelihood that disciplinary policies absorb changing perceptions of in more severe consequences in terms of immediacy, duration, and intensity of punishment for disciplinary infractions, even if student behaviors remain constant.” Whereas, “Net-widening, results when more far-reaching efforts to deter and manage delinquency increases the number of youths subject to some sort of official control” (Van Dusen, 1981)[6]. As Irby states, “philosophically, moral entrepreneurs discipline students through surveillance and spectacle. In practice, schools’ discipline efforts target high and low-level incidents. With wider and deeper discipline nets, students are likely to be punished more often and more severely.”

Such practices reinforce perceptions that marginalize students of color, with disabilities, experiencing poverty, and who are linguistically diverse. These perceptions in return dictate practices of reaction, requiring students to react, and attempt to circumvent a system that was established based on a normative that never included them. This requires each child to react by either choosing assimilation to this normative, learning to circumvent this system that does not see them, or pushing against this system through what is viewed within the system as oppositional behavior.

In addition, according to a study sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and released 2019[7], compared to students who did not experience LGBTQ-related discrimination at school, students who experienced discrimination:

• Were nearly three times as likely to have missed school in the past month (44.1% vs. 16.4%)
• Had lower GPA’s (3.14% vs. 3.39%)
• Were more likely to have been disciplined at school (40.2% vs, 22.6%)
• Had lower self-esteem and school belonging, and higher levels of depression

The GLSEN survey also reported that students who identify as LGBTQ, who experienced higher levels of victimization based on their gender expression:

• Were almost three times as likely to have missed school in the past month than those who experienced lower levels (59% vs. 21.8%)
• Had lower GPA’s than students who were harassed less (2.98% vs. 3.36%)
• Were twice as likely to report that they did not plan to purse any post-secondary education (e.g., college or trade school) (11.1% vs. 5.4%)
• Were more likely to have been disciplined at school (46.8% vs. 27.2%)
• Had lower self-esteem and school belonging, and higher levels of depression
• Of the students who indicated that they were considering dropping out of school (42.2%) indicated that it was related to the harassment they faced at school.

Students experiencing challenges with their mental health often either go unnoticed or school personnel are unable to connect with them. National Public Radio reported that “most children — nearly 80 percent — who need mental health services won’t get them”[8], referring to it as “the silent epidemic.” In addition, reports of verbal and emotional abuse, as well as practices of restraint and seclusion, continue to be more common than any educator wants to admit.

Not only do students have a right to feel safe at school, but in order for learning to occur, students have a right to be safe. Research on the brain and learning suggests that when a person feels afraid, the brain shuts down, making learning very difficult. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that school administrators have a legal responsibility to protect students from harassment. Teachers and administrators can be held legally liable for failing to stop harassment occurring in the school (Reese, 1997).[9]

Proactive Behavioral Intervention Systems (PBIS)

Proactive Behavioral Intervention Systems (PBIS) are intended to respond to a deficit-based system by placing a band-aid on top of a broken system, by seeing the student as “the problem” versus the system. PBIS is a tiered system with an underlying belief that specific students will be segregated. This assumption goes against the research and data regarding the importance of students learning the appropriate behaviors in the environments in which they occur.[10]

Restorative Justice Educational Practices

Restorative Justice is an alternative to traditional discipline (exclusionary practices of suspension and expulsion). “Proponents of Restorative Justice often turn to restorative practices out of concern that exclusionary disciplinary actions may be associated with harmful consequences for children (e.g., Losen, 2014)”.[11] More recently, it has also been embraced as a preventative intervention for building an interconnected school community and healthy school climate in which punishable transgressions are less common. That being said, adding Restorative Justice practices on top of a deficit-based or broken system, reinforces the need for students to learn to navigate “white space” (space built on an underlying assumption of whiteness as the normative) or educational cultures that were never designed for all students.

Restorative Justice practices can include professional development for all staff and students, but most often are still embedded in a deficit-based system. Restorative Justice is also used along with or in addition to Social and Emotional Learning and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. The National Centre for Restorative Approaches in Youth Settings defines Restorative Justice as, “… an innovative approach to offending and inappropriate behavior which puts repairing harm done to relationships and people over and above the need for assigning blame and dispensing punishment… A restorative approach in a school shifts the emphasis from managing behavior to focusing on the building, nurturing, and repairing of relationships”.[12] In the legal system, Wachtel (2016)[13] of the International Institute of Restorative Practices argues that “… restorative justice [is] a subset of restorative practices. Restorative justice is reactive, consisting of formal or informal responses to crime and other wrongdoing after it occurs.” Restorative Justice practices occurring within a deficit-based system, perpetuate a deficit-based system, and continue to teach students to circumvent spaces that were not created for them initially.

When the expectations of interrupting structural, instructional, perceptual, and disciplinary inequities within a district are set from the school board and district office, a culture of equity and social justice based on the Equity Non-Negotiables is built and sustained. In this way, students no longer experience segregation, remediation, and low expectations, and instead actually see themselves as “capable learners”.

Equitable Best Practices

Schools and districts can support equitable behavior and discipline practices, by first beginning with moving from a reactive system to a proactive system for all learners. Then, the Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams must determine which students are in need of an individualized proactive behavioral plan. Next the district/school must provide professional development for all staff specific proactive classroom-based social emotional and sensory integration supports.

Move from a Reactive System to a Proactive System for All Learners

First and foremost, the district must move to a proactive educational system through an understanding of:

1. Educational history of marginalization and oppression (Digital Module 1)
2. An assets-based lens (Digital Module 2)
3. Ongoing identity development work across all identities and their intersections (Digital Module 3)
4. How the research supports a proactive system (Digital Module 4)
5. Aligning all work to the district’s Equity Non-Negotiables (Digital Module 5).
6. Completing the Equity Audit and aligning the data to your school’s current structures by reflecting on those practices that are reactive and proactive (Digital Module 6)
7. Realigning staff to C3 Teams and proportionally representing students (Digital Modules 7 and 8)
8. Providing Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning through heterogeneous small group instruction (Digital Module 9)
9. Understanding Human Resource practices, Funding and Policy to the Equity Non-Negotiables (Digital Modules 10-12)
10. Confirming Individualized Skills at a Glance (ISAAG) and assisting C3 Teams to confirm that each student receives the consistent instruction related to such goals

Once a district has moved from a deficit-based system to a proactive system, the number of students who are disengaged or seeking attention through negative reinforcement decreases and the number of students who see themselves as smart and capable through identity relevant teaching and learning increases. Therefore, the number of students who require a proactive behavior plan decreases over time.

Typically, 85% of students will function well in a proactive school climate and 10% of those students may challenge it at times but can be appropriately redirected. At the very most, four percent of the student population may need a detailed behavior support plan to assist teachers and the student in finding more solid ground from which to work. Finally, 1% of the student population has mental health disorders or significant behavioral needs. Continuous behavioral plans, as well as outside medical and psychological support will be necessary. We encourage all educators to keep these percentages in mind and remember that 1 out of every 100 students needs more support and understanding due to needs that are often not within the student’s control. If all other structures are in place and a student is continuing to be challenged by the rules within a school (approximately 4% of the population as described above), it is imperative that staff create an individualized student support plan. However, it is important to clarify that positive behavior is not a precursor to educational engagement, but that educational engagement and belonging is a precursor to positive behavior.

Determine the students who Require a Proactive Behavioral Plan

An individualized student support plan provides both staff and the student with continuity. For staff it describes how to proactively support a child and for the student it specifically teaches how to navigate school through appropriate behavior. That is, the student knows that regardless of the environment they are in — whether it is the lunchroom, the school bus, the hall, or a particular class — that the proactive adult response will be consistent across all these environments. In addition, the process of developing the plan will help the adults who come in contact with the student, to have a shared understanding of the situations that trigger the student’s inappropriate behavior(s) and the strategies that can help mitigate such behavior. In addition, a student support plan also allows for a layer of objectivity, which will help elicit clearer, more consistent staff responses. Just as a reminder, student support plans must be written individually for each student. There are many schools where the entire class is on a behavior modification system, that is different from an individualized student support protocol and should not be substituted for an individualized student support plan.

Unfortunately, there are many legal ways to deny students with challenging behaviors access to education, such as the 45-day rule, positive manifestation hearings, expulsions, and suspensions, to name a few. Often we hear administrators say, “How do I get this kid out of my school?” Now, we all know that the administrators asking the question are not “bad” people, most often they are trying to protect other students, teachers, and administrators. What happens, nevertheless, is that these administrators spend a significant amount of time and energy trying to document why the child should not be in school instead of spending energy working with staff and the child to determine how the child can remain in the school.

There are times that students do require psychiatric treatment that a school cannot provide. With ICS Equity, when that student requires treatment, the Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn Team of educators remains the child’s essential link back to school. They simply transfer their attention to the student’s progress with their treatment and work with the family and physicians on a proactive reentry back to school. Others have asked, “If the stimuli within a school are too much for a student to gain control of her behavior, what do we do?” Through Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams, teachers are better able to create an educational schedule that meets the individual needs of the learner through heterogeneous small groups, large groups (when appropriate), and 1:1 instruction. It is not necessary to establish a segregated classroom for students with emotional disabilities as a place for a child to gain control.

Professional Development for Social Emotional Supports for all Learners

Supporting a student with social emotional needs is never easy. It is important that students experience the district and school climate as supportive, that the C3 Teams work together and utilize the student’s support plan that was developed by those individuals who are directly involved with the student. Many District’s find using a school-wide social emotional learning curriculum is useful and supports the learning of all students. has been provided as a proactive curriculum provided in the core of teaching and learning. This curriculum should be reinforced with ongoing professional development.

Social emotional learning is directly related to the culture of the district and the individual school. As such, educators have a choice to create school cultures that are cohesive rather than fragmented, comprehensive instead of not being synthesized within the core of teaching and learning, and to provide access to high-quality teaching.

Professional Development on Sensory Integration at the Classroom Level and Individual Student Level

Sensory integration is the process by which people register, modulate, and discriminate sensations received through the sensory systems to produce purposeful, adaptive behaviors in response to the environment (Ayres, 1976/2005)[14]. According to available research findings, “it is estimated that 40%–80% of children (Baranek et al., 2002) and 3%–11% of adults (Baranek, Foster, & Berkson, 1997) with developmental disabilities also have significant sensory processing difficulties.”[15] For this reason, setting up all classrooms with appropriate sensory integration options and activities is proactive and supportive of all learning. Students with increased needs, should have a sensory schedule created by the C3 Team/IEP Team along with the school’s Occupational Therapist. In this manner, addressing the student’s sensory needs upfront, may assist in developing a Proactive Support Plan. Such documentation should be included on the student’s ISAAG or Individualized Skills At A Glance form discussed in Module 8.

An individualized student support plan provides both staff and the student with continuity to proactively support a child and specifically teach how to navigate a school provided with appropriate social emotional support. In addition, a student support plan also allows for a layer of objectivity, which will help elicit clearer, more consistent staff responses.

When staff are successful with a student whom they would have typically removed, they will become more successful with other students over time. On the other hand, when a child is removed, it only promotes the continued removal of students with behavioral challenges within school environments in the future. In such cases, teacher capacity does not grow and often becomes more limited or inhibited. There is no choice but for staff and students to grow with each other if we want to keep our children in school. Co-creating a positive school climate begins at the district and school level. Specifically, the success of students who challenge us behaviorally begins with adult behavior. Educators must approach every situation believing that we can prevail. So often the students recommended for removal are the same students who so badly want to belong, students who with consistent and cohesive supports can succeed.

Operationalizing Our Work

To operationalize our work, we must develop an equitable framework from the district to the school, to every classroom, on behalf of every individual student. At the district level, we must begin by setting the standards of proactive behavioral supports for all learners. The following are six standards to operationalize proactive behavioral supports:

Standard 1: Complete ICS Equity Steps 1 through 12 in the School and District Digital Modules.

Standard 2: Define a culture of valuing each and every learner.

Standard 3: Collect district and school equity audit data – drill deeper into the district discipline.

Standard 4: Develop an understanding of identities through many activities – be vigilant of keeping the work of equity front and center at the district and school level.

​​Standard 5: Determine if district discipline policies are net-widening and net-deepening.

Standard 6: Create Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA’s) and Student Support Plans (SSP’s) to support consistency across all staff. We often suggest using our forms, as they are simple and clear.

Overview information for the School Leadership Team (SLT) is provided to assist in meeting the standards delineated above. Please keep in mind that this information is the beginning of the discussion and certainly not considered to be conclusive. This information is provided to assist SLT members in connecting the pieces of their proactive practices based on the Equity Non-Negotiables of Integrated Comprehensive Systems for Equity (ICS Equity).

Standard 1: Complete ICS Equity Steps 1 through 12 in the School and District Digital Modules.

Often we hear that educators do not know what to do with students with high behavioral needs. It is clear that a deficit-based system perpetuates high behavioral needs through practices of marginalization and oppression, low expectations, fragmented educational experience, and the perpetuation of a system of “white space” based on an incorrect normative. Therefore, it is imperative that the educational system completes the ICS Equity Steps within the School, District, and School Board Digital Modules. Once the educational system has completed the ICS Equity Steps and Digital Modules for the District, School, and School Board, they can continue to reinforce a proactive system through their Equity Non-Negotiables.

Standard 2: Define a culture of valuing each and every learner and continuing to interrupt “white space” by continuing through the Digital Modules and the school’s commitment to continue the work of Identity Development in Digital Module 3.

Standard 3: Collect district and school equity audit data – drill deeper into the district discipline data.

Use the District Equity Audit to collect all data and then specifically focus on discipline data. Each School Leadership Team may be interested in using the Wallpaper Effect by Johnson to assist in drilling down in the area of discipline data. For example, but not limited to the following:

• Referrals by the teacher by the student group
• Suspensions, detentions, and office referrals by the student group
• The severity of response to behavior by student group (e.g., race, gender, disability, poverty, language) and then by administrator
• Discipline referrals by the current model
• Align data above to academic performance
• Determine/Discuss unintended consequences of discipline policies – associated with data
• Delineate loss of learning time during consequences
• Define the student voice in discipline policies
• Percent of students sent home early for half day due to chronic behavior
• Percent of students on student support plans – effectiveness
• Determine patterns or trends

As School Leadership Team (SLT) members complete their data analysis, it will be important to discern if student groups (e.g., students experiencing poverty, students who Black, etc.) are treated differently or targeted more frequently for their behaviors. The SLT must also attend to the difficult conversation of whether staff perceptions or biases of student groups impact disciplinary actions. These conversations can be uncomfortable and may require the DLT and the SLT’s to revisit the Assets-Based and Identity Digital Modules.

Standard 4: Develop an understanding of identities through many activities – be vigilant of keeping the work of equity front and center at the district and school level.

The following are an integrated description of those examples provided in earlier Digital Modules specific to Assets-Based Thinking and Identity Development for System Change:

1. Define assets-based and deficit thinking.
2. Commit to be a person-first, bias-free language school by practicing rephasing notes home, policy, IEP language, and other student documents
3. Link Assets-Based/Deficit Thinking/High Expectations to Current Model discussed in the Realignment Digital Modules. Where we place/assign kids even though we think we are helping, reinforces deficit-based beliefs:

1. First draw out on large adhesive paper how students are currently being served (e.g., special education, ELL, RtI, etc.).
2. What programs are in place?
3. Then compare the current service delivery to assets based/deficit thinking.

1. Keep the Importance of Language to Transform from Deficit to Assets-Based Culture and Practices at the forefront of the work. See District Digital Module 2, Assets-Based vs. Deficit-Based Practices.
2. Continue working individually, in small groups, and as a school and district in the understanding of different identities and their intersections. Review identity development models as part of the identity development journey.

​Standard 5: Determine if district discipline policies are net-widening and net-deepening.

Many of the suggestions below are also delineated within the Digital Modules of Cornerstone 4: Leverage Funding and Policy. The process below is specific to discipline policy and procedures.

1. Review all discipline policies and procedures.
2. Are they assets-based or deficit-based?
3. Do they align with the Equity Non-Negotiables?
4. Do they promote a culture of support, compassion, and understanding?
5. Are student groups treated differently?

1. 1. Students with IEP’s compared to students without. If so, can the policies be equal for all students?
   2. For example, students with disabilities have a suspension cap of 10 days – will the district support a cap of 10 days rather than 15 days for students without disabilities?
2. Review all student and parent handbooks.

1. Are they assets-based or deficit-based?
2. Do they align with the Equity Non-Negotiables?
3. Do they promote a culture of support, compassion, and understanding?
4. Review all anti-harassment policies.

1. • • Are they assets-based or deficit-based?
     • Do they align with the Equity Non-Negotiables?
     • Do they promote a culture of support, compassion, and understanding?
     • Do the harassment policies include all student groups and the intersection of all identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic, LGBTQ, religion, language, disability)?

Standard 6: Create Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA’s) and Student Support Plans (SSP’s) to support consistency across all staff for the small percent of the students who require such a plan.

School Leadership Teams must provide leadership to establish a consistent student support planning process across all classrooms. Such a process allows for continuity across schools to support students proactively, as they learn appropriate behaviors within the context of heterogeneous school communities and classrooms. Often administrators and staff expect a student to show that they “know how” to behave in segregated or isolated environments and then transfer those behaviors to the classrooms and schools they should attend if they were not identified with a behavioral challenge. Such practices have limited positive results for the following reasons:

1. The student does not see themself as a part of the school community and thus behaves in a self-fulfilling manner that perpetuates inappropriate behaviors.
2. Often the stimuli within schools and classrooms, that a student would attend if not identified with a behavioral challenge, are different than what is experienced within segregated units, schools, and classrooms.
3. Students often increase negative behaviors when clustered or segregated with other students. Dr. Hattie’s research is clear on the impact of peer influences on students, both negative and positive.

The SLT should provide a consistent process and procedure for Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams to use to complete a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) resulting in a proactive Student Support Plan (SSP). An example of an FBA and SSP are attached to this Digital Module for your use and adoption. We suggest that SLT’s provide training on how to complete a Functional Behavioral Assessment resulting in a proactive Student Support Plan (SSP). The following training is recommended for all C3 Teams:

1. Share the FBA template presented in Figure 12 and assist the C3 Teams in collecting data individually and then sharing out across their team in the following sections:

• List positive behaviors the student currently exhibits
• List challenging behaviors the student currently exhibits in descriptive language:

• • • Behavior in observable terms
    • Perceived communicative intent behind the behavior
    • Frequency and duration of behavior
    • Antecedents or what proceeded the behavior
    • Typical response and outcome at school and home
    • Rank seriousness

• Brainstorm proactive supports

When the staff brainstorms proactive supports, keep in mind the importance of communication needs, instructional needs, proactive sensory support needs (provided through a daily sensory diet), and of a consistent schedule (e.g., picture, written, auditory, etc.). In Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams the range of expertise can be found with the speech and language clinician in the area of communication, occupational therapist in the areas of sensory integration, general and special educators attending to Identity Relevant Teaching and Learning, and the special educator attending to the appropriate sensory schedule.

The C3 Teams must then analyze their results as a team and determine the top three behaviors to then use the information collected in the FBA to create a proactive Student Support Plan (SSP).

Figure 12: Sample Process Template for Functional Behavioral Assessment

2. Share the Student Support Plan (SSP) template with Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams to create proactive Student Support Plans (SSP), based on the collective objective data delineated in the FBA.

• Delineate agreed upon proactive supports in the Student Support Plan (SSP)
• Begin with the student behavior
• Keep in mind that most of us can’t change all behaviors at the same time, begin with the most important behavior based on the functional assessment.
• Determine the initial proactive adult response.
• Determine follow-up proactive response.
• Determine signs of resolution.
• Support C3 Teams documenting observations on a daily and weekly basis.

It is important to remember that is not unusual for negative behavior to increase before it decreases. As Co-Plan to Co-Serve to Co-Learn (C3) Teams must be patient and consistent with the implementation of the SSP.

Figure 13: Sample Student Support Plan Template

3. Below is an opportunity to participate in a mock professional development for C3 Teams, in the area of Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) development by using a 15 minute video entitled Educating Peter.

The C3 Team will watch the video and individually complete the FBA using the prompts delineated in the form and discussed in #1. Once each team member completes their perceptions of Peter’s behavior, members share out within the team and then create one FBA.

Figure 14 below contains an example of a completed FBA and SSP for Peter.

Figure 14: Example Functional Assessment for Peter

Figure 15: Example of a Proactive Student Support Plan for Peter

Based on the data presented at the beginning of this Digital Module, students who have been over-disciplined are often viewed as requiring a form of punishment or exclusion, rather than a behavioral support plan. Such a response is based on the perception of wanting to respond to a student being intentionally disruptive rather than seeking to understand the communicative intent behind the student’s behavior. Below is an example of a Functional Behavioral Assessment and a proactive Student Support Plan for a student who is named Tamara (name changed to keep student’s identity anonymous). Tamara is a 9^th grader who has moved schools multiple times and has reported not feeling safe, seen, or heard in school. She is new to the district (which has been working with ICS for almost 10 years) but presents concerns that the district has not seen for some time. Therefore, a Functional Behavioral Assessment and a proactive Student Support Plan is essential. See Figures 16 and 17 below for the Functional Behavioral Assessment for Tamara and Student Support Plan for Tamara.

Figure 16: Functional Behavioral Assessment for Tamara

Figure 17: Proactive Behavioral Support Plan for Tamara

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM6epVgyPFo

[2] U.S. Education Department, Office for Civil Rights, 2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection, released October 2020, updated May 2021, available at https://ocrdata.ed.gov.

[3] https://claudesteele.com/book/

[4] Hattie, J & Zierer, K. (2019). Visible Learning Insights. Routledge: New York

[5] Irby, D. (2013). Net Deepening of School Discipline. The Urban Review 45(2), 197-219

[6] Van Dusen, K. (1981). Net Widening and Relabeling. American Behavior Scientist (July 1, 1981).

[7] https://www.glsen.org/research/2013-national-school-climate-survey

[8] NPR – date?

[9] Reese, S. (1997). The law and gay bashing in schools. Education Digest, pp. 46-49.

[10] https://www.pbis.org/pbis/what-is-pbis

[11] https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/resource-restorative-justice-in-u-s-schools-an-updated-research-review.pdf

[12] Hopkins, B. (2003). Just schools: A whole school approach to restorative justice. ,p.3

[13] Watchel, T. (2016). In pursuit of a paradigm: A theory of restorative justice. Justice Studies Center of the Americas

[15] https://www.aota.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Practice/Children/Resources/FAQs/SI%20Fact%20Sheet%202.pdf