interventions are challenging to define, determine, and implement. This study found staff held varying perceptions of non-school related factors influencing student behavior, including: poverty, trauma, and limited resources. The varying perceptions of staff are reflected in the literature, as well. For example, trauma is well-documented in the literature as a factor influencing student behavior. Trauma can impair a youth’s ability to pay attention, establish appropriate boundaries, cognitively process information, as well as control anger, aggression, and other impulses (Cook et al., 2005), which may result in acting out and other externalized behaviors in the classroom (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention State Training and Technical Assistance Center, 2013). Shonk & Cicchetti (2001) found that youth who had experienced maltreatment were less
likely to display appropriate social skills and become engaged in school. Furthermore, they generally demonstrated more externalizing and internalizing behaviors than non- maltreated youth.
Ryan, the psychologist, argued that students lacked executive functioning (EF) skills. Working memory, mental set-shifting, and response inhibition are examples of core executive functions that map onto dimensions of behavioral self-regulation
(Anderson, 2002; Blair & Diamond, 2008). Poor EF is associated with cognitive deficits, poor socio-emotional adjustment, and poor academic functioning (Biederman et al., 2004; Blair, 2002). This may manifest itself as a lack of concentration, a lack of understanding of cause and effect, an inability to understand mental states, and/or impulsivity (Riggs, Jahromi, Razza, Dillworth-Bart, & Mueller, 2006).
Scholars have also examined other factors influenced by socio-economic status, poverty, or accessibility to community supports and resources. Poverty has a profound and predictable association with children’s cognitive abilities, physical health, and social- emotional development (e.g. Bradley and Corwyn 2002; Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997; McLoyd 1998). Youth from impoverished families have more social-emotional
difficulties and engage in more behavioral risks than youth from middle-income families (e.g., Korenman et al. 1995; Wadsworth and Achenbach 2005; Duncan et al. 1998). It’s difficult for educators to pinpoint the antecedent of all student behaviors; rather,
educators may have greater success at making predictions of the underlying issues resulting in student behaviors.
Some study participants were critical of behavioral supports and interventions used within the school. Behavioral interventions were challenging to define, as they were often described as a series of collaborative steps, practices, and efforts from multiple stakeholders. The following fictional vignette is offered to illustrate the complexity of defining a behavioral intervention to a singular approach:
Duke is a 3rd grade, African-American/Black male student being supported by Mr.
Drake in Pike’s behavioral intervention program. Duke has been observed displaying both non-compliance and externalized behaviors, including work refusal, yelling at teachers, throwing classroom supplies when work is perceived as difficult, and occasionally threatening to hit and punch staff and students. This behavior occurs in the general education classroom, on the playground, and in the lunchroom. To support Duke, the school has put him in the behavior program that Mr. Drake operates. Mr. Drake implements a check-in check out (CICO) system at the beginning, middle, and end of the day. The CICO system is tied into a weekly token economy system where Duke can earn weekly and monthly rewards if displaying safe and appropriate behaviors. Duke also begins and ends his day in Mr. Drake’s classroom and has access to Mr. Drake’s room on an as-needed basis throughout the day. Additionally, Mr. Drake and the behavioral support
paraprofessional do daily periodic spot checks on Duke. Mr. Drake provides a weekly summary of student behavior to the family at the end of the week. While Duke’s support plan was fictitious, it was very similar to approaches of support systems I’ve observed as an educator. This vignette is a series of mini-
interventions, steps, and actions and it’s difficult to determine one specific pre-referral intervention. The following questions illustrate the subjective interpretation of Duke’s behavior and behavioral intervention:
Behavioral Causes/Identification: Why is Duke displaying both non-compliance and externalized behaviors? Are they interconnected or isolated incidents? Why is Duke refusing to do work? Is it above his instructional level? Do the tasks require extensive homework at home? If so, does Duke have support at home to assist him with his homework? Is Duke’s behavior as a result of staff’s implicit bias in their analysis and interpretation of his behavior?
Behavior Intervention Identification: What was the intervention in his vignette? Was the intervention the CICO system? The behavior spot-checks? Family
communication? The alternative location to start/end the school day? Token economy system? Access to the behavioral intervention room? The support from the interventionist and paraprofessional?
Scholars have examined practices, strategies, and interventions that can be incorporated into classrooms that influence student behavior, further highlighting
complex factors that may influence student behavior. Scholars have demonstrated variety of strategies found to support student behavior. Many of these are approaches staff would use to support students like Duke. For example, scholars have shown the following strategies improve student behavior: classroom layout and physical environment (Wong and Wong, 2009), classroom routes and structure (Kern and Clemens, 2007), and
teaching classroom expectations to increase engagement (Brophy, 2004; Evertson & Emmer, 1982; Johnson, Stoner, & Green, 1996).
Additionally, scholars have demonstrated the following strategies from teachers support student behavior: using active supervision [scanning, moving, interacting] within the classroom (Depry and Sugai, 2002), prompts or pre-correction [restating expectation] with active supervision, (Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee, 1997; DePry & Sugai, 2002; Lewis, Colvin, & Sugai, 2000), prompts and pre-correction with appropriate behavior (Arceneaux & Murdock, 1997; Faul, Stepensky, & Simonsen, 2012; Flood, Wilder, Flood, & Masuda, 2002; Wilder & Atwell, 2006) and prompts with transitions to new routines (Alberto & Troutman, 2013).
Scholars have also found increased rates of opportunities for students to respond [questioning, responding] supports student on-task behavior and promotes correct responses while decreasing disruptive behavior (Carnine, 1976; Heward, 2006; Skinner, Pappas & Davis, 2005; Sutherland, Alder, & Gunter, 2003; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001; West & Sloane, 1986) and contingent praise [behavior-specific praise] is associated with increases in a variety of behavioral and academic skills (Partin, Robertson, Maggin, Oliver, & Wehby, 2010).
Scholars have found positive student behavior increases with interventions, including behavior contracts (Drabman, Spitalnik, & O’Leary, 1973; Kelley & Stokes, 1984; White-Blackburn, Semb, & Semb, 1977; Williams & Anandam, 1973), group contingencies (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969; Hansen & Lignugaris-Kraft, 2005; Yarborough, Skinner, Lee, & Lemmons, 2004), and token economies (Jones & Kazdin,
1975; Main & Munro, 1977; McCullagh & Vaal, 1975). Other practices found to support student behavior include planned ignoring (Hall, Lund, & Jackson, 1968; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968; Yawkey, 1971) and differential reinforcement (Deitz, Repp, & Deitz, 1976; Didden, de Moor, & Bruyns, 1997; Repp, Deitz, & Deitz, 1976; Zwald & Gresham, 1982).
Recommendations Organizational Management and Theory
I. Increase and clarify professional development on systems and subsystems