A classwide peer-assisted self-management program: Adaptations, implications, and a step-by-step guide for rural educators

Rural Special Education Quarterly, Spring 2002 by Mitchem, Katherine J, Wells, Deborah L

Abstract

Nationwide, teachers and administrators alike note that classroom management is one of their top rated concerns and a key reason for their reluctance to include students with disabilities in their classrooms (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). In rural states this problem is exacerbated by shortages of trained personnel (Helge, 1992) resulting in students with special needs having little or no access to trained special educators or being served by a succession of untrained teachers and aides (Ludlow, 1998). Teachers legitimately question how they can cover the content necessary to meet state testing standards when faced with frequent disturbances in the classroom by disruptive and off-task behavior, defiance, and non-compliance. This paper describes a practical classwide self-management program that shifts the responsibility for managing behavior back to the student and allows the teacher to focus on instruction. Step-by-step instructions on how to implement the program and tips for troubleshooting are provided.

Across the country there is little disagreement that the violent and disruptive behavior of youth, whether at home, in schools, shown in the media, or on our streets, is a matter of national concern. Since young people spend approximately one-half their waking hours at school, schools are the sites of much of this violent and disruptive behavior. According to a National Education Association survey (Sautter, 1995), on any given day as many as 160,000 students stayed home for fear of such behavior at or on the way to school. Nationwide, 24% of all students in Grades 3 through 12 reported having been assaulted by another student (Lowry, Sleet, Duncan, Powell, & Kolbe, 1995). In addition to extreme acts of violence, schools and classrooms were frequently disturbed by less severe forms of disruptive behavior such as off-- task behavior, defiance, noncompliance, harassment, and intimidation (Nelson, 1996). Given these statistics, it is not surprising that the annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools consistently identifies lack of discipline as the most serious problem facing schools (Rose & Gallup, 1999). Not only do many teachers feel unprepared to deal with disruptive behavior, they also believe that this behavior substantially interferes with their teaching and their ability to successfully include students with disabilities (Schumm &Vaughn, 1995). General educators' reluctance to include students with disabilities is perhaps most clearly evident with regard to the inclusion of students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders into general education settings. For example, only 17% of students with learning disabilities compared with 34% of students with emotional disturbance were served in a separate class during the 1995-96 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Cotton (1990) estimated that only half of all classroom time was used for instruction, with most of the other half taken up by disciplinary problems. The implications for all students and particularly the successful inclusion of students with disabilities should not be underestimated.

The students who display troubling classroom behaviors may be the greatest barrier to successful inclusion and instruction of students with disabilities. As indicated by their disability, these students demonstrate difficulties in interpersonal relationships, an inability to interact in socially acceptable ways, and interact less frequently and in more negative ways than their peers, decreasing successful integration experiences (McGinnis & Goldstein, 1984; Meadows, Neel, Parker, & Timo, 1991). Therefore, inclusion strategies must not only address academic achievement, but also must strive to increase social competence, foster positive peer relationships, and strengthen positive student-teacher interactions (Dougherty, 1994).

The issue of effectively addressing student behavior in the classroom is especially troubling for rural school districts. Rural schools face stifling roadblocks when attempting to implement strategic changes such as inclusive education for students with disabilities and behavior problems. These roadblocks include a limited tax base for needed revenue, a need to deliver service over a wide geographic area, inadequate facilities, limited related services providers, high transportation costs, and a lack of access to effective staff development (Knapczyk, Rodes, & Brush, 1994; Helge, 1992; Howley, 1991).

In West Virginia and rural parts of Maryland, this problem is exacerbated by personnel needs typical in rural states. Rural school systems have experienced the most severe and consistent difficulties in obtaining an adequate supply of special educators to work in local schools (Helge, 1992). All too often, rural students with special needs may be unserved (with little or no access to a trained special educator) or underserved (experiencing a succession of untrained teachers and aides) (Ludlow, 1998). In addition, West Virginia schools have an aging population of teachers. In public hearings held in West Virginia on school violence, speakers consistently addressed the need to train teachers to recognize troubled youth early, to be proactive in classroom and school wide discipline, and to be trained in crisis management (U.S. Congress, 1998). Preliminary analysis of data from a survey of 70 rural educators from West Virginia and Maryland (Mitchem, 2000) confirms these findings. These teachers reported that the greatest challenge facing them in the classroom today is classroom management followed closely by adapting curriculum to meet student needs.