Administrative Support for New Teachers of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Behavior Support Classrooms

The application of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures for the purposes of developing interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) has received considerable attention since the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The purpose of this paper is to review the literature addressing the use of FBA with E/BD students in school settings and to discuss implications for a state of the art model that integrates empirically supported procedures with promising practices to be implemented within the ecology of current educational systems. Key Words: Functional behavioral assessment, functional assessment, functional analysis, indirect assessment, direct assessment, emotional disorders, behavioral disorders, descriptive analysis ********** Since the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools have been required to conduct functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) and develop positive behavioral support plans for students with disabilities who were exhibiting challenging behaviors that interfered with their learning or the learning of others. Additionally, cumulative suspensions equaling or exceeding ten days within a school year were considered a change in placement and required the IEP team to conduct the FBA within ten days of the change in placement for those students if a behavior support plan was not in place at the time of the infraction. The 2004 revision of IDEA, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, softened the FBA requirements to include only those students whose disciplinary infractions are manifestations of their handicapping condition. While the 1997 legislation did require the use of FBA for students exhibiting significant behavioral difficulties, it did not specify procedures or techniques to assess behavior for the purpose of determining function, thus no gold standard that details how to implement the mandate existed in 1997 and still does not exist. Some authors argue that the legislation was passed prior to the field having adequate empirical literature to demonstrate the use of these procedures with this population. In a review of 97 studies including 458 participants, Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & Rutherford (1999) concluded that the research base on FBA with all populations was just emerging at the time of the mandate. To comply with the legislation, school districts throughout the country were forced to establish FBA procedures and identify or prepare personnel who could conduct FBAs and prescribe behavioral support plans based on those assessments. School districts essentially had two choices: develop professional expertise in functional assessment for their school personnel, or secure the services of behavior analysts. Much of the initial efforts aimed at conducting school based FBA modeled the type of applied behavior analysis typically reported in studies in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis with subjects with developmental disabilities (DD) (Gresham, 2003). Implemented practices in the schools relied less on research than on the cottage industry of FBA that grew out of legal necessity (Sasso, Conroy, Sticher and Fox, 2001). Increasingly then, developing forms of FBA and function guided behavioral intervention were proposed and evaluated in the research with greater rigor. At the same time, legal analysis of case law emerging since IDEA 1997 provided support for many aspects of what experts in the area would consider best practices. Etscheidt (2006) reviewed all cases from 1997 to present in which the development of a behavior intervention plan was the subject of the appeal. Several themes emerged from this review including the notion that, in students with IDEA eligibilities, behavior plans that include positive behavioral supports must be developed when behavioral needs are evident and the child's learning (or the learning of others) is impacted. …

The overrepresentation of U.S. minority students identified for emotional and behavior disorders special education programs plagues schools and challenges researchers and practitioners. Arcane methods including teacher nomination continue to guide referral processes, despite compelling evidence of their influence on disproportionate special education placement for children of color. As universal screening practices are deployed, emerging evidence suggests that requiring a teacher, parent, or student to complete a rating scale may reduce disproportionality. By using available research to posit that if schools engage in universal screening of behavioral and emotional risk using formal scales, fewer children of color would be placed in special education programs. The logical and evidentiary case for universal screening is made and questions requiring more research are presented.Keywords: disproportionality, emotional behavior disorder, behavioral and emotional risk, special education referralEarly intervention and prevention programs have been linked to positive school outcomes such as high school completion, promoting increased well-being, and enhanced resilience (Blair & Diamond, 2008; Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2000). Blair and Diamond (2008), for example, found that intervening to improve emotional and behavioral regulation among students at risk for school failure increases their likelihood of academic success. However, current practices for identifying students in need of behavioral and emotional support in schools often fail to identify all students who need support, are implemented after student problems have increased in magnitude, and tend to identify a large number of minority students (Ferri & Conner, 2005; Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson, & Wu, 2006).Increasing pressures on school districts and state education agencies to address the disproportionate number of African American students in special education programs have had little impact on the practices employed for identifying students for these programs (Artiles & Bal, 2008; Artiles, Bal, & King-Thorius, 2010). School districts continue to use teacher referral practices that identify an over representative number of African American students for special education and related services (Ferri & Conner, 2005; Semmel, Gerber & MacMillian, 1994). These practices also overlook the value of norm-referenced child data; these data are rarely used in special education decision-making, including the eligibility determination process (Ferri & Conner, 2005; Kim & Rowe, 2004). For these reasons, a change in the methods used to identify students with behavioral and emotional disorders is warranted. This article reviews research suggesting that the use of student self-report universal screening instruments may diminish the overrepresentation of African American students in special education programs, and guide early intervention for students at risk for behavioral and emotional disorders.DlSPROPORTIONALITYDisproportionality refers to the disproportionate or unequal number of students of color in special education programs. Research in the area of disproportionality generally investigates both the overrepresentation of minority students in special education programs and the underrepresentation of these groups in programs for the gifted and talented, (Waitoller, Artiles, & Cheney 2010). This article will focus on the overrepresentation of Black students being referred for special education services.Researchers have attempted to understand the cause of, and develop remedies for, the overrepresentation of African American students in special education programs for more than five decades (Dunn, 1968; Ferri & Connor, 2005; Ferri, Connor, & Connor, 2010; Harris, Brown, & Richardson, 2004). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2006), African American students are identified with a disability and placed in special education programs at a significantly higher rate than their White peers. …

Building upon previous research on the importance of students' motivation for their learning and academic success, this study sought to examine how students' motivation in the classroom may impact the way their teachers' treat them. Specifically, data from 423 middle school students and their 21 teachers were used to examine the extent to which student engagement and disaffection (individually and in combination) in the fall predicted changes in teachers' provision of motivational support from fall to spring of the same school year. The study also examined whether these relationships might differ by student grade or gender, and whether the effects of each component of motivation can be buffered or boosted by the level of the other component. Overall, results provided partial support for study hypotheses. As expected, engagement and disaffection (as reported both by students and by teachers) individually predicted changes in teacher motivational support over the school year, such that engaged students were more likely to gain teacher support across the school year whereas disaffected students were more likely to lose teacher support. Assessing the unique effects of engagement and disaffection suggested partial support for their combined predictive utility, although less support was found for teacher-reports than student-reports. Across time, student-reported disaffection demonstrated unique effects on changes in teacher support but student-reported engagement did not. For teacher-reports of engagement and disaffection, neither component of motivation predicted changes in teacher support above and beyond the other component. Across reporters, mean-level gender differences in the constructs of interest were consistent with expectations based on previous research suggesting that girls tend to be more motivated than boys in school; however, despite these significant differences in mean-levels, there were few gender differences in the strength of the reciprocal effects of student motivation on teacher support. Of the 12 tests for gender differences in the links between student motivation and teacher support, only two were found, and both cases demonstrated significant gender effects of the same form, such that engagement and disaffection demonstrated significant reciprocal effects for both genders; however, the effects were significantly stronger for boys. As expected, examination of mean-level differences in engagement and disaffection as a function of grade suggested that student motivation and teacher support decline as students progress through middle school. In general, significant reciprocal effects of student motivation on teacher support across time were found for students of all grades for both student- and teacher reports; however there

Discipline problems are frequent in schools and they may have a harmful effect on pupils’ learning outcomes. A lack of discipline and the subsequent potential increase in school disorder (e.g., bullying, substance use) can seriously threaten the quality of instruction that teachers provide, hamper pupils’ acquisition of academic skills (e.g., low achievements or excessive referrals for special education) and subsequently reduce their attachment to the educational system (Sugai et al., 2000). As such, discipline represents a serious concern for parents, head teachers and teachers, demanding significant efforts and resources from schools (Kaplan et al., 2002). The most recent PISA report (OECD, 2010) recognises that schools registering higher levels of disciplinary problems compel teachers to reduce time for learning while dealing with disciplinary issues. For instance, the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) pointed out that teachers spend at least 20% of lesson time dealing with disruption and administrative tasks. On a global average, 13% of teachers’ time is spent maintaining order (OECD, 2009). In the United Kingdom, the Behaviour Survey 2010 states that 80% of school teachers felt their ability to teach effectively was impaired by students’ poor behaviour (Massey, 2011). Schools use different procedures to manage discipline, including a range of punitive responses (e.g., loss of privileges, additional homework or detention hours). Among them, exclusion is normally seen as one of the most serious punishments for offences. Although types and lengths vary from country to country, school exclusion (also known as school suspension)1 can be broadly defined as a disciplinary sanction imposed in reaction to students’ behaviour (i.e., violations of school policies) by the responsible authority. In concrete terms, exclusion entails a removal from regular teaching for a period of time during which students are not allowed to take part in classroom lessons or be present on school premises. Specifically, fixed-term exclusions consist of a limited number of hours or days (Cornell et al., 2011), whereas permanent exclusion involves the pupil being transferred to a different school or educated outside the regular education system (Spink, 2011; Webb & Vulliamy, 2004). Even if school policies suggest the use of exclusion as a measure of last resort, reserved for only the most serious and persistent offences (Skiba & Peterson, 1999; Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Skiba et al., 2012), research evidence suggests that behaviours provoking this type of punishment can also involve minor offences (Munn, Cullen, Johnstone, & Lloyd, 2001; Skiba, 2014). Fenning et al. (2012) provide a case in point: Their research concluded that suspension and expulsion were the most common types of punishment imposed as a response to minor problems such as tardiness and school truancy. These findings were also confirmed by Liu (2013) who found that 48% of suspensions lasting a maximum of 5 days targeted minor disorder or disruptive behaviours. In terms of prevalence, data provided by the UK Department for Education (academic year 2011/12) show that in England fixed-term exclusion affects 3.5% of the school population whereas permanent exclusion reaches only 0.06%. The national figures suggest that students in secondary-level education (6.8% of the school population) as well as those in special education (14.7%) are the most likely to experience fixed-term exclusion (DfE, 2013). International comparisons of exclusion prevalence rates are not available in the literature examined. Differences in use, extent and recording (i.e., unreported exclusions) make a global estimation challenging. However, a comparative analysis among a sample of high- and middle-income countries allows an overview of variations in exclusion names, types and lengths as well as in the accountable authority responsible for—and with control over—exclusions. Table 1 describes exclusion in ten different countries. The comparative data incorporated in the table above suggest heterogeneity in the application of exclusion among countries. For instance, in the US, Norway and England, educational systems distinguish between fixed and permanent exclusion. However, in some educational systems, such as Finland's, the law prescribes only fixed-term exclusions. In terms of length, England limits fixed-term exclusions to a maximum of 45 days per school year while New Zealand's legislation allows exclusions for a maximum of 10 days per year. On the other hand, it is important to note that in some countries (e.g., France), there are specific laws that define and regulate exclusion whereas in others (e.g., Chile and Colombia), the authority to define the length of the sanction is given to each school. We anticipate that these differences will be addressed in the proposed review. From a normative point of view, school exclusion is a punitive response for misbehaviour. In that sense, behavioural problems seem to be the most obvious predictor for exclusion. In fact, Reinke, Herman, Petras, & Ialongo (2008) illustrate the aforementioned role of problem behaviour in exclusion by conducting a latent class analysis. Participants in the subclass of boys exhibiting behavioural problems only (i.e., isolating other academic/learning difficulties) were almost 4 times more likely to be suspended (OR = 3.42; 95%CI 1.36-8.58; p < .05) than their non-problematic peers. Similarly, Pas, Bradshaw, Hershfeldt, & Leaf (2010) found that after controlling by student, teacher, classroom, and school level covariates, the strongest predictor for out-of-school suspension was disruptive behaviour (OR = 4.83; 95%CI 4.10-5.68; p < .05). Despite the role of behaviour in school exclusion described above, research from the last 40 years suggests that it is not the unique or even the most prominent predictor. In fact, previous findings illustrate a more complex scenario where exclusion is disproportionately predicted by gender, ethnicity, age, economic background and special education needs (Yudof, 1975; Costenbader & Markson, 1998; Monroe, 2005; Nickerson & Spears, 2007; Noltemeyer & Mcloughlin, 2010; Mcloughlin & Noltemeyer, 2010; Skiba, Horner, May, & Tobin, 2011). In the following paragraphs we offer an overview of the role of these variables in predicting school exclusion. Data provided by the Department for Education in England (DfE) 2011/12 suggests that male pupils are around three times as likely to be punished by exclusion than female pupils (DfE, 2013). The same trend can be observed in the recent study published by Liu (2013) based on longitudinal data from 13,875 American students. The study reports the predominance of males being excluded, but recognises that the proportion of females excluded tends to increase from elementary (23.7%), to secondary (32.7%) and high school (35.2%). More specifically, Bowman-Perrott et al. (2013: 91), based on a sample of 2,597 pupils, concluded that the predominance of males in exclusion rates (OR = 2.28) was even larger in the case of pupils with learning disabilities (OR = 4.31). Research outcomes suggest a clear and consistent disproportionality in the prevalence of ethnic minorities as a target for disciplinary exclusion (Gregory et al., 2010). In the US, different sources of data show that school exclusion overly affects minorities such as Afro-Caribbean (Noltemeyer & Mcloughlin, 2010), Latino (Skiba et al., 2011) and American Indian students (Gregory et al., 2010) in comparison with their white peers. In the UK, data from the DfE (2012) showed that: “The rate of exclusions was highest for Travellers of Irish Heritage, Black Caribbean and Gypsy/Roman ethnic groups. Black Caribbean pupils were nearly 4 times more likely to receive a permanent exclusion than the school population as a whole and were twice as likely to receive a fixed period exclusion”. Notably, recent multivariate analysis points out that racial disproportionality in exclusion still remains significant after controlling by behaviour, number and type of school offences, age, gender, teacher's ethnicity and socio-economic status (Fabelo et al., 2011; Noltemeyer & Mcloughlin, 2010; Rocque & Paternoster, 2011; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). The likelihood of being punished by exclusion increases with age, being more frequent during adolescence. In England, 52% of permanent exclusions are imposed on pupils aged between 13 and 14 (DfE, 2013). In the case of American students, results follow a similar trend. In fact, data reported by Liu (2013) pointed out that suspensions reach a peak in ninth grade (i.e., 14 to 15 years old). Also based on a sample of American students, Raush & Skiba (2004) concluded that the number of out-of-school suspensions was significantly higher in secondary schools when compared to elementary ones. Low SES has also been identified as a predictor of high rates of disciplinary exclusion. The UK Department for Education (DfE) (2012) compared the rates of exclusion by eligibility for free school meals (FSM). Those eligible for FSM were 4 times more likely to be punished by a permanent exclusion and around 3 times more likely to get a fixed-period exclusion than children who were not eligible. In the US, Nichols (2004), based on a sample of 52 schools (37,000 students), found a similar pattern but the correlation between FSM and exclusion was higher and more significant for pupils in middle school (r = .84; p <. 01) than for elementary (r = -.12) or high school pupils (r = .48). In Australia, Hemphill et al. (2010), using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression (N = 8,028 students), concluded that pupils settled in low SES neighbourhoods were exposed to higher rates of exclusion (8.7%) when compared with pupils in high SES areas (2.9%). However, the evidence still seems to be inconclusive in this respect. Recently, Skiba et al. (2012), using a multilevel approach, tested data from 365 schools and a total number of 43,320 students. They concluded that when comparing those students eligible for free or reduced-cost lunch with their non-eligible peers, the first were more likely to get out-of-school exclusions (OR = 1.269). However, contrary to expectations, the eligibility for free or reduced meals resulted in a negative predictor of permanent exclusion (OR = 0.025). Although an increasing amount of research has focused on predictors of school exclusion, analysis on the role of SEN still seems to be limited. In 2007, Achilles et al. exceptionally differentiate the role of three different SEN, namely emotional/behavioural disorders (EBD), attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and learning disability (LD). Higher rates of exclusion were more likely among those with EBD (OR = -1.49; p<. 001) compared with ADHD (OR = -2.58; p < .001) and LD (OR = -5.44; p < .001). Recently, Bowman-Perrott et al. (2013), using three waves from the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS), confirmed that children identified with emotional or behavioural disorders (OR = 3.95) and attention-deficit or hyperactivity disorders (OR = 4.96) were more likely than children with learning disabilities (OR = 2.54) to get suspended or expelled from school. In the same direction, Sullivan, Van Norman, & Klingbeil (2014) confirmed the idea of differences among disabilities. In their conclusions, those presenting EBD were by far more at risk of exclusion (OR = 6.78) than those presenting other health impairments. In fact, when controlling for race and gender, this trend remained stable and significant. Supporters of zero tolerance policies have pointed out that the use of exclusion can persuade students to take account of their behaviour and limit the motivation for rule-breaking (Bear, 2012). However, most of the research has consistently documented the negative impact of these types of sanctions (Hemphill et al., 2006; APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Sharkey & Fenning, 2012; Chin et al., 2012). In particular, previous research suggests that school exclusion is related to serious negative externalities on at least three dimensions of young people's development: behavioural, academic, and future social inclusion. Some literature related to the question of the relationship between exclusionary punishment and behaviour suggests that harsh punishments such as exclusion could result in a spiral into more defiant behaviour of students. Raffaele-Mendez (2003), for instance, found a moderate and significant correlation (r = .39) between out-of-school exclusion (grades 4 to 5) and subsequent exclusion (grade 6). Similarly, Theriot et al. (2010) found that pupils punished by in-school and out-of-school exclusion were slightly more likely to get the same punishment again (ORin-school = 1.25; p < .001; N = 9706 and ORout-of-school = 1.32; p < .001; N = 9706). Using longitudinal data, Arcia (2006: 366) concluded that dropout was another behavioural consequence of exclusion. In fact, “43% of students who were suspended 21 or more days dropped out 3 years after their ninth-grade enrolment”. Similarly, Cratty (2012: 649) found a positive correlation between out-of-school suspensions and dropout rates. In particular, “those who had an early record of multiple exclusions registered 60% dropout during high school” when compared with non-excluded students. The use of exclusion, in turn, is linked with more serious behavioural outcomes such as antisocial conduct, delinquency and entry into the juvenile justice system. Longitudinal research carried out by Hemphill et al. (2006: 736) argues that “school suspensions significantly increased antisocial behaviour 12 months later, after holding constant established risk and protective factors (OR = 1.5; 95%CI 1.1-2.1; p < .05; N = 3655)”. In terms of the involvement of school excludees in the criminal justice system, Costenbader & Markson (1998: 67) found significant differences between excluded students and those never excluded. In their view, “while 6% of the students who had never been suspended reported having been arrested, on probation, or on parole, 32% of the externally suspended subsample and 14% of the internally suspended subsample responded positively to this question. Males reported significantly more involvement with the legal system than did females”. Meanwhile, Challen & Walton (2004), studying a population of boys in the criminal justice system, concluded that more than 80% had been previously excluded from school13. Evidence suggests that periods of exclusion may have detrimental effects on pupils’ learning outcomes. Exclusion is accompanied by missed academic activities, alienation as well as demotivation in relation to academic goals (Brown, 2007; Michail, 2011). In particular, Hemphill et al. (2006) found that excluded pupils were slightly more prone to fail in the academic curriculum when compared with non-excluded students (OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, p < .01). Along similar lines, Arcia (2006) produced a longitudinal retrospective study regarding the associations between exclusions and achievements from fourth to seventh grade. After three years, non-excluded students displayed substantially higher reading achievement scores when compared with their non-excluded peers. In fact, seventh-grade students who were excluded 21 days or more achieved scores similar to fourth-grade students not excluded. Finally, Raffaele-Mendez (2003) added that those excluded were also less likely to graduate from high school on schedule. Some studies have pointed out that young people excluded from school can also register a high risk of becoming “Not in Education, Employment, or Training” (NEET) in the future. In 2007, Brookes et al. stated that students who had been excluded, were 37% more likely to be unemployed during adulthood. Speilhofer et al. (2009) showed that among individuals who were in sustained NEET, the majority had experienced previous prior exclusions and truancy. More precisely, Massey (2011) argued that approximately one out of two excluded children will be NEET within two years of their exclusion. Research has also illustrated the long-term implications of exclusion for society as a whole. In economic terms, the cost of excluding children from school can increase the demand on public resources. Although the literature on this matter is still limited, Brookes et al. (2007) produced a report regarding the costs of permanent exclusion in the United Kingdom. The analysis encompasses an estimation of costs for the individual as well as for the educational, health, social and criminal justice services. Overall the cost, in 2005 prices, of permanently excluding a student was estimated to amount to £63,851 per year to society. While there is a stark link between the aforementioned negative outcomes and school exclusion, these should not be regarded as causal. Notwithstanding decades of research on school exclusion and its impact on later behaviour, we are still in an initial stage for testing causal associations in these matters. The association between exclusion and these negative outcomes may simply reflect underlying behavioural tendencies that lead to conduct problems, exclusion and poor outcomes later in life, namely the antisocial syndrome depicted by Farrington (1997). In fact, school exclusion and the behaviours described here as “negative outcomes” could be explained by the same underlying factors or personality traits characterising the syndrome. Despite the lack of empirical support for a causal association, some criminological theories have been able to explain the connection between punishment and the reproduction of deviant behaviour. Labelling theory, for example, suggests that those punished (e.g., by exclusion) and labelled as “deviant” may start behaving in ways that conform with their newly formed self-image: For example, by being more limited in their interactions with integrated students, and shunning conventional social systems such as the school (Krohn, Lopes, & Ward, 2014: 179). Likewise, Sherman's defiance theory (1993) elucidates the circumstances in which punishment can evolve into more antisocial behaviour (i.e., defiance) instead of compliance with rules. In his view, punishment can increase the prevalence, incidence, or seriousness of future offending when offenders deny responsibility, and when they perceive sanctions as unfair, stigmatising and imposed by an illegitimate authority. Finally, despite all these findings and the rationale around the negative outcomes linked to school exclusion, it is important to mention that, so far, there is no evidence demonstrating that exclusion is effective for improving school discipline (Skiba, 2014). What is more, in the short term, exclusion seems to directly deny students’ right to access school as well as reducing adult supervision for those who are most at risk of taking deviant paths, or most in need of teachers’ support. The prevalence of exclusion and its adverse correlated consequences has caught the attention of policy makers and programme developers. As a result, a range of interventions has been designed/implemented to improve school discipline. In the present review, we plan to include any type of school-based intervention aimed at reducing school exclusion as a punishment for inappropriate behaviour. Included interventions may be those targeting individual risk factors or school-related as well as those using a more that parents, teachers, school and also the targeting individual risk factors for instance, such as or skills for children (e.g., & type of intervention on student behaviour or more students’ skills for are justice (e.g., et al., et al., In these interventions target children and in skills to with or more in social interventions are normally in a curriculum and in schools during school The curriculum involves a of or using a range of such as and among others & 2012; & 2012). the classroom interventions may target teachers’ in classroom et al., 2013). the for teachers encompasses (i.e., for teaching maintaining and skills (i.e., positive conduct, to explain aimed at improving the learning and positive by pupils & 2014). Some schools offer health or are in schools in order to to the school can also be available for on related to students’ behavioural and emotional issues. these interventions target a in out-of-school exclusion et al., students, teachers and school as well as the as a whole (e.g., et al., 2012; & 2001; & et al., 2010). A programme is the and The programme to provide support for positive conduct by disciplinary procedures (i.e., improving school and reducing problem a (i.e., whole school intervention for pupils and interventions for The of the programme a school for social and academic early of problem behaviour, teaching social skills to all students, using behaviour support and using data for Research reports more and need to be et al., 2012; 2012). In we a of and the of school-based for different outcomes et al., 2014). The results that there has been no previous aimed at the of interventions (i.e., different types of at reducing disciplinary school exclusion. the most similar study is the one published by et al. (2003), who a on the of in educational Among other the analysis that these interventions had a effect (r = = N = p < .05) on administrative and disciplinary However, in this the of suspension was reported with other disciplinary and the study did not with any other intervention proposed in the present The also for a given the high heterogeneity of A similar type of analysis was by & (2011) and & In school exclusion was as an but the did not report the impact of the intervention with relation to the targeted Likewise, et al. (2012) a testing the of a the and Despite a number of studies data on exclusion, the not report effect by their the reports effect on the of discipline referrals and behaviour. In two have been produced regarding intervention reducing disciplinary exclusion. (2011) and Overall 10 reports were The concluded that interventions were the most frequent and that they could have a positive effect on reducing exclusion of pupils who are at As the study did not report a of effect In produced another that may be an for suspension and exclusion in school The were not clear to the of the not the of effect Despite a of research on the negative effects of exclusion, no previous based on a has been to previous evidence the impact of school-based interventions for reducing disciplinary exclusion. The this by results from published and a of the effect of school-based interventions at reducing exclusion. has clear implications for policy The results provided by the present study a evidence for school and These results can to the adverse social and economic effects of school exclusion in the previous as well as and less punitive ways to school discipline. The of the present research is to the available evidence for the of different types of school-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion. goals to comparing different (e.g., classroom and those that could larger and more significant We also to analysis controlling for of (e.g., age, ethnicity, level of interventions (e.g., (e.g., and (e.g., research The research underlying this are as We will include studies based on or with at least one (i.e., the and one control (i.e., comparison Participants should be to each The control in this may for instance, a control with no a control with intervention as a control or a will also be However, we plan to the of and data the of analysis We will also include that involve control and be the and control should be in a that the effect of is The should report the to taking into account for risk factors and (e.g., where there is a between the and control at will be excluded as they will not in intervention effects from other effects & 2008; & 2002). studies based on or the will be excluded from the present review. In the review, analysis and results based on and will be reported we plan to effect from studies they have been for other covariates, when data we will report and effects in the Included reports should sample a population of students in and secondary schools of and or from countries other than the UK will be as as they school targeting and secondary the sample will consist of children aged 4 to However, we the of studies to be targeting pupils aged 10 to where research suggests the number of exclusions (e.g., Raush & Skiba, 2012). students who present special education disabilities or learning problems but settled in schools will also be students with serious disabilities or those in need of special schools will not be The rationale for this

Social and Emotional Learning in Schools: From Programs to Strategies and commentaries

The areas of education inclusion and digital inclusion have recently received growing interest from the research community while addressing the wider concern of social inclusion, but little research has been carried out exploring the relationship between the two areas. Central to both areas, this paper presents a study that investigated student teachers' attitudes towards using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for equality as part of inclusive education and practice, and explored the extent to which it is important that student teachers are prepared for both education and digital inclusion. The study focused on the attitudes of student teachers who had taken a new reformed course on inclusive education and practice within a Scottish University. Results from the study showed that student teachers' attitudes towards using ICT for teaching and learning were strongly positive, and were also strongly positive towards inclusive education. Their attitudes towards inclusive practice and using ICT for inclusive practice were slightly less positive. This seemed to result in ICT being used less in terms of inclusive education and more from the perspective of accessibility to the curriculum. The study provided evidence that the impact of ICT as part of inclusive practice is not well understood by student teachers and that student teachers' attitudes towards digital equality do not feature highly in inclusive practices. Consequently, greater attention to ways in which ICT is used for inclusive purposes is needed in Initial Teacher Education and in education policies in order to improve student teachers' preparedness for education inclusion.

List of Contributors. Preface. Chapter 1 Inclusion and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 2 Academic Instruction and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 3 Social Skills Training and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 4 Effective Practices/Interventions for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 5 Positive Behavior Supports and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 6 Response to Intervention (RtI) and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 7 Mental Health Issues and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 8 Promising Practices for Effective Transition for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 9 Technology and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 10 Families and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Chapter 11 Teacher Preparation and Students with Behavioral Disorders. Behavioral Disorders: Practice Concerns and Students with EBD. Advances in special education. Advances in special education. Copyright page.

Adolescence is a critical development transition period that increases vulnerability to poor mental health outcomes. Recent evidence suggests that adolescents in Uganda experience high rates of behavioral and emotional disorders. We examined the factors associated with emotional and behavioral health outcomes among school-going adolescents in Uganda. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed 1,953 students aged 10-18 enrolled in Central and Eastern Uganda secondary schools selected by stratified random sampling. Our outcome variables were (i) emotional and (ii) behavioral disorders that were measured using the Child and Adolescent Symptom Inventory-5 (CASI-5) diagnostic criteria outlined in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5). Emotional disorders included major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder were considered behavioral disorders. Covariates included socio-demographic, hardship-related experiences, and school-related characteristics. Modified Poisson and logistic regression models were appropriately run for the factors independently associated with respective outcomes. Prevalence ratios (PR), odds ratios (OR), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were reported with p < 0.05 considered significant. Participants' mean age was 15.5 (SD = 2.0) years; 54.7% were female, 5.7% had a behavioral disorder, and 17.4% had an emotional disorder. In the adjusted models, factors independently associated with higher odds of behavioral disorder were age (OR=1.2; 95%CI 1.1 - 1.4) and family history of mental illness (OR=1.9; 95%CI 1.2 - 3.3). Factors independently associated with a higher risk of emotional disorder were being female (PR = 1.5; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.8), being enrolled in advanced education (PR = 1.7; 95%CI 1.2 - 2.4) and attending private school (PR = 1.4; 95%CI 1.1 - 1.8). Behavioral and emotional disorders are prevalent among adolescents enrolled in secondary schools in Central and Eastern Uganda. Investigating potential causal pathways of the identified associations is critical to support school mental health initiatives. School-based programs should enhance routine mental health assessments and target at-risk students in order to improve the mental health of school-going adolescents in Uganda.

A comparison of workshop training versus intensive, experiential training for improving behavior support skills in early educators

This chapter discusses developmental processes and tasks during the middle and high school years with a particular focus on the contextual changes for youth with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Normative developmental changes to internal factors across the cognitive, emotional, psychological, and behavioral domains are discussed. A discussion of how external factors, such as the family and school context, can impact adolescents' development is presented and the utility of the developmental science perspective for understanding internal and external changes in combination is discussed. The importance of understanding how the context can impact the functioning and adaptation of youth with emotional and behavioral disorders is emphasized with examples of school and family experiences of youth with EBD. Lastly, this chapter advocates for utilizing knowledge about developmental processes in intervention efforts to promote adaptation and positive adjustment for youth with EBD.

Special education faces serious shortages of teachers, and the area of special education teaching with the greatest shortage is in the field emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). This study was conducted to identify the perceptions of current teachers of students with EBD on the definition of and the extent and importance of administrative support to identify contemporary factors affecting teacher longevity in the field. A survey of CCBD members who teach students with EBD was used to examine the effects of perceived administrative support on teacher stress, job satisfaction, and school commitment with intent to stay in the field. The results of the study indicated characteristics of administrative support significantly correlated with intent to stay in the field, extent of support, opportunities for growth, appreciation and trust, job satisfaction, and positive views of their school. In addition, examination revealed specific administrative behaviors influenced the decision of teachers of students with EBD regarding longevity in the field.

BackgroundAdolescence is a critical development transition period that increases vulnerability to poor mental health outcomes. Recent evidence suggests that adolescents in Uganda experience high rates of behavioral and emotional disorders. We examined the factors associated with emotional and behavioral health outcomes among school-going adolescents in Uganda.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we surveyed 1,953 students aged 10–18 enrolled in Central and Eastern Uganda secondary schools selected by stratified random sampling. Our outcome variables were (i) emotional and (ii) behavioral disorders that were measured using the Child and Adolescent Symptom Inventory-5 (CASI-5) diagnostic criteria outlined in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5). Emotional disorders included major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder were considered behavioral disorders. Covariates included socio-demographic, hardship-related experiences, and school-related characteristics. Modified Poisson and logistic regression models were appropriately run for the factors independently associated with respective outcomes. Prevalence ratios (PR), odds ratios (OR), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were reported with p < 0.05 considered significant.ResultsParticipants’ mean age was 15.5 (SD = 2.0) years; 54.7% were female, 5.7% had a behavioral disorder, and 17.4% had an emotional disorder. In the adjusted models, factors independently associated with higher odds of behavioral disorder were age (OR=1.2; 95%CI 1.1 - 1.4) and family history of mental illness (OR=1.9; 95%CI 1.2 - 3.3). Factors independently associated with a higher risk of emotional disorder were being female (PR = 1.5; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.8), being enrolled in advanced education (PR = 1.7; 95%CI 1.2 - 2.4) and attending private school (PR = 1.4; 95%CI 1.1 - 1.8).ConclusionsBehavioral and emotional disorders are prevalent among adolescents enrolled in secondary schools in Central and Eastern Uganda. Investigating potential causal pathways of the identified associations is critical to support school mental health initiatives. School-based programs should enhance routine mental health assessments and target at-risk students in order to improve the mental health of school-going adolescents in Uganda.

The goal of this study was to investigate the transactional link between the affective quality of teacher-student relations and students' externalizing behavior in upper elementary education. We studied teacher support and conflict separately and examined whether associations differed for boys and girls. Data were collected from 1452 Dutch fifth graders (Mage = 10.60 years) at three time points within one school year, including peer nominations of teacher-student relationships and external observations of teacher-student interactions. We used random-intercept cross-lagged panel models to examine the associations within the school year. Student behavior and teacher conflict and support were clearly interrelated within measurement moments. That is, within each time point, deviations from students' typical level of externalizing behavior were associated with deviations in teacher conflict and support in teacher-student relations. In contrast to earlier work, we found no transactional link between students' externalizing behavior and their relationships and interactions with their teacher over time, neither for teacher conflict nor for support. However, for boys, an association was found between externalizing behavior and later increased teacher conflict. We concluded that it remains important to invest in supportive teacher-student relations to prevent increasing conflict and that transactionality may occur within shorter time intervals.

We want people to care about young people's EBD and to see EBD as undesirable but to see It as a treatable condition and to support more effective ways of treating It.-Kauffman and Badar, 2014, p. 26This quote from Kauffman and Badar's paper titled How We Might Make Special Education for Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders Less Stigmatizing Is central to their discussion and provides a critical message to the field of special education for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Implicit In this sentence are two concepts one might think go without saying: (a) youth who experience EBD have a condition that negatively Impacts development and contributes to long-term adjustment problems; and (b) there Is a need for Intensive and comprehensive intervention to help foster adaptation and promote more positive outcomes in youth with EBD. Further, a logical extension of these two concepts Is that programs designed to effectively support the education and treatment of youth with EBD are desirable and provide an Important service that enhances the lives of these students and their families. Yet, as Kauffman and Badar suggest In the title and summarize in the article, identifying youth as having EBD and providing treatment for them is viewed to be stigmatizing by many people, which, In turn, has constrained both the support and use of special education and related services for EBD.I began working with children and young adults with disabilities and EBD in the early 1980s. When I first began, I thought this was difficult and emotionally demanding work, but I also found It to be highly rewarding and personally satisfying. Most notably, I thought this was very important work-the kind of work that makes a meaningful difference in the lives of others and the kind of work that others view as both extremely necessary and Invaluable. Over the years, I've found many aspects of being In the field of special education for youth with EBD to be challenging, but I have remained steadfast In my sense that this is Important work. However, I no longer think many others outside of the field hold this work in high esteem. Further, I have been mystified by events, practices, and policies that, in the name of protecting youth with EBD from stigmatization, have resulted in creating additional obstacles and challenges for children and adolescents I view as being highly misunderstood and vulnerable to extremely poor outcomes. In their article, Kauffman and Badar take the Issue of stigmatization head-on and instead of trying to avoid it or act like It should go away, they help us to see why we need to understand and systematically work to reduce its Impact on special education for youth with EBD.In this commentary, I build from Kauffman and Badar's article to examine the Issue of stigmatization from four perspectives. First, I consider how efforts to avoid stigmatization may be related to current approaches to address emotional and behavioral problems in the general population. Second, I summarize my views of what has been lost In the field of special education by efforts to avoid stigmatizing youth with EBD. From this backdrop, I explore how the suggestions offered by Kauffman and Badar can help realize the promise of special education for students with EBD. I conclude with a discussion of the need to bridge the constructs of research and caring within the concept of community In treating youth with EBD.Avoiding Stigmatization by Addressing EBD as a General Population IssueIn the past few decades, several advances have been made that are related to understanding the development of EBD. Further, there has been considerable progress in terms of the establishment of effective interventions to prevent and reduce the impact of emotional and behavioral problems within the general population by improving behavioral and mental health support services in school settings. These advances are highly welcomed and provide an important foundation for enhancing the treatment of students with EBD. …

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) experience a variety of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems, gaps in academic achievement, and increased rates of dropping out of school. Thus, it is essential that students with EBD receive evidence-based academic and behavioral supports from skilled and knowledgeable teachers to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, teachers typically receive limited professional development in classroom management practices and other supports targeting the unique needs of students with EBD. In this manuscript, we describe (a) challenges in the field related to supporting students with EBD, (b) current practices in professional development, (c) a multitiered-system-of-support framework for organizing and providing professional development, and (d) the need for more research on efficient and effective professional-development supports for teachers of students with EBD.