T RA N S F O R M I N G A S C H O O L C U LT U R E F R O M C O N S E Q U E N C E S T O R E - E N G AG E M E N T

COMPASSIONATE DISCIPLINE

Irvington SchoolPortland Public Schools

WORKSHOP OUTCOMES

Participants will:• Be given an outline of the transformative process

used at Irvington, as well as resources and practical tools used with staff and community members.• Be shown what data helped to inform the process,

including disciplinary data that reflected equity concerns in the disciplinary process.• Be shown how disciplinary data can help inform

classroom instruction and equity practices.

SCHOOL BACKGROUND

• Irvington School, Portland Public Schools• K through grade 8• 465 students• Demographics: Asian- 2%, Black- 22%,

Caucasian- 53%, Hispanic- 12%, Multi-racial- 10%• 41% Free and Reduced Lunch, 5% ESL• Historic district, gentrification efforts since the

1980s

BENEFITS

• Experienced staff, average of 18 years experience• Staff does not leave until retirement• Strong community involvement

CHALLENGES

• Experienced staff, “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”• Strong community involvement, “small town”

style gossip mill• “White flight” from the middle grades/white

families had negative perceptions about students of color• Involvement of families of color does not match

our demographics

MULTIPLE STRAND APPROACH

• Strand #1- School Discipline Plan• Strand #2- Continuing Equity Work• Strand #3- PBIS/School Climate Team (Tier 1)• Strand #4- Student Intervention Team (Tier 2)• Strand #5- Data Review• Strand #6- Community Outreach

STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLANSEPTEMBER 2011

• Behaviors split into Stage 1, 2, or 3 categories• Guidelines as to where students should physically

be• Positive Supports and Corrective Consequences • Teacher/Staff responsibilities• Administrative responsibilities• Based off of district policy developed in

coordination with the Portland Association of Teachers• WORK IN PROGRESS!

STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLANSEPTEMBER 2011

Whole Staff Efforts (Tier 1)• Early September- Discipline Plan introduced at

opening staff meeting through a PowerPoint presentation, copies given to each staff member• Mid-September- Copies were handed out again

and Teacher/Administrative Responsibilities were reviewed at a staff meeting• Late September- Discipline Plan was reviewed at

a staff meeting

STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLANON-GOING, 2011-2012

Whole Staff Efforts (Tier 1)• Periodic reminders about discipline procedures

• Individual consultations with teachers regarding:-cause/function of behavior-intent-what consequence would prevent the

behavior from happening again and/or address the underlying need?

STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLANON-GOING, 2011-2012

Individual Efforts (Tier 2)• Individual consultations with teachers and

parents regarding:-cause/function of behavior-intent-what consequence would prevent the

behavior from happening again and/or address the underlying need?• Behavior reports given back with reminders of

procedures and examples of correctly completed behavior reports

STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLANMAY 2012

• Annual Discipline Plan review required by Teacher’s Association• Discipline Plan approved by staff

STRAND #1: DISCIPLINE PLANSEPTEMBER 2012

• New Behavior Report form developed with part of PPS PBIS Team: Tammy Jackson, Jeremy Geschwind, Todd Nicholson, Drew Laurence• New Behavior Report form presented to staff• PBIS Coach Jeremy Geschwind did a one hour

presentation on the function of behavior

STRAND #2: EQUITYBACKGROUND

• PPS “Initiative” to work with Glenn Singleton and train district employees in “Courageous Conversations” and cultural competency

• Examine data with a racial/ethnic lens• Ensure equitable access to education for all students in

PPS• Irvington is a “Beacon” school in this work- one of the first

schools in PPS to begin whole staff Courageous Conversations five years ago

• 2 hour staff trainings every month, Equity Team, CARE Team, and parent groups

• Courageous Conversations protocol is foundational to every meeting

STRAND #2: EQUITYOCTOBER 2011/ON-GOING

• Worked with the staff to focus on getting “below the line” information about students during the two hour in-service time• Circumstances/situations that can have a direct

effect, positive or negative, on student behavioral and/or academic success

STRAND #2: EQUITYFEBRUARY 2012

• Examination of first and second quarter disciplinary data during two hour in-service time• Staff saw that even though only 47% of our

students are students of color, 89% of referrals/Behavior Reports were written for students of color• Staff discussion about why this had occurred and

what could be done to change it

STRAND #2: EQUITYAPRIL 2012

• Examination of students of color who were not being successful academically and/or behaviorally• Reflection on what “below the line” information

was known about those students

STRAND #2: EQUITYSEPTEMBER 2012

• Staff reminded about the importance of getting “below the line” information• Experienced staff explained this concept to new

staff• Staff members were given time to make

positive/outreach phone calls home

STRAND #3: PBIS/SCHOOL CLIMATE OVERVIEW

• School Climate Team held monthly meetings• 4 days of training with Susan Isaacs from the Safe

and Civil Schools Foundation (PPS Initiative)• PPS PBIS Coach support from Jeremy Geschwind• Focus on “Integrity Takes 5” Guidelines and Tier 1

supports• Monthly lessons developed to reinforce “Integrity

Takes 5”

STRAND #3: PBIS/SCHOOL CLIMATE OCTOBER 2011

• CHAMPS module workshop- “Building Positive Relationships with Students” during staff meeting

-Focus on giving students non-contingent attention-3 to 1 Ratio of Interactions (3 positives

interactions for every negative interaction)

STRAND #3: PBIS/SCHOOL CLIMATE MARCH-JUNE 2012

Staff input and eventual approval given for:• Individual student reward system• Monday announcements that reinforce focus for

the month• School-wide Spirit Day assemblies

STRAND #3: PBIS/SCHOOL CLIMATE NEXT STEPS 2012-13

• CHAMPS classroom management training, including classwide motivators• Continued common area assessment and

redesign• Continued work on Tier 2 school supports

STRAND #4: STUDENT INTERVENTION TEAM (SIT)

OCTOBER 2011• Explanation at staff meeting that the Student

Intervention Team was a general education body, not a special education referral team• Before students can be referred to SIT, teachers

have to show evidence of multiple interventions

STRAND #4: STUDENT INTERVENTION TEAM (SIT)

OCTOBER 2012• Review of SIT Team expectations and

requirements• Emphasis on need for academic and/or behavioral

data

STRAND #5: DATA REVIEWON-GOING

• Staff had not been used to reviewing data• Data review (specific to particular grades) slowly

introduced at grade level meetings (K-5), and Team meetings (6-8)• School-wide data reviewed at staff meetings.

Staff participated in problem-solving.

STRAND #6: COMMUNITY OUTREACH2011-2012

• Formation of a committee of teachers, parents, and administrators• Committee purpose was initially to examine why

so many students were leaving the school after the 5th grade• Once changes were made, the committee

purpose became to unify the school as a K-8 unit• Parents became part of the solution

ANECDOTAL RESULTS

• Staff understanding of “below the line” information has led to staff members being proactive when a student appears to be struggling

• Administration is spending more time working with students before issues occur as opposed to after receiving a Behavior Report

• Fewer students in the hallway during instructional time

• Much calmer during transitions• Positive comments from parents• Parents really did get positive phone calls!