INQUIRY - UO Research Journal A magazine highlighting research at the University of Oregon Summer 2002, Volume VIII, Number 1 A Message About Research A Message from the Dean of the College of Education A First Step toward Preventing School Violence Getting Readers on the Right Track Beyond the #2 Pencil: Improving Testing to Improve Education Making Safer Schools in Oregon: What Should We Do? A Practical Tool for Monitoring Development in Young Children http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/ (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:00:31 AM INQUIRY - UO Research Journal Creating a Better Environment for Learning Back Issues About INQUIRY... Return to University of Oregon News and Calendar Page. http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/ (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:00:31 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 2 Summer 2002 A Message about Research Rich Linton There has been considerable discussion in Oregon about achieving "top-tier" status for higher education programs of fundamental importance to the state's future. The research programs in the University of Oregon's College of Education have not only achieved national top-tier status, but will continue to address the quality of education for future generations of Oregonians. The college is a national leader in education research through its basic investigation of social issues and the innovative translation of its findings into enhanced educational practices. The U.S. News and World Report?Best Graduate Schools edition for 2002 indicates that the College of Education's graduate program is ranked fourth among public institutions in America. The college receives approximately one-third of the competitive grant funding won by the UO. Awards totaling $21.7 million in 2001 resulted in a third-place ranking among American colleges of education. The college currently has the most productive educational research faculty in the nation, as reflected by its top ranking for research and training grant funds awarded per faculty member. As illustrated in this issue of Inquiry, researchers in the college contribute to improving education in many ways with benefits that help our local school districts and extend to the national system of education. Sustaining the excellence of the college's diverse research programs, including its centers and institutes, is a continuing priority for the UO Research Office. Rich Linton Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies Dean of the Graduate School University of Oregon Back to INQUIRY home page ?2002 University of Oregon http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art2.html (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:01:07 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 2 http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art2.html (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:01:07 AM University of Oregon, College of Education : Research & Outreach : ALERT! For viewing the graphical version of this website, we recommend using the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, or Mozilla. Because we have detected that you are using an older browser, your view has been set to show text only. ? switch to graphic version : Internet Explorer 5.0+, Netscape 6.1+. Mozilla 1.1+ recommended University of Oregon College of Education text readers : click here to bypass navigation area Search for Header Paths ? Contact ? News ? Site Map User Paths ? Students ? Faculty ? Alumni ? Guests ? Prospective Students Resource Paths ? Home ? About Us ? Academic Programs ? Application ? Awards ? Dates ? Events ? Fields of Study ? Financial Aid ? Find Faculty ? Forms ? Jobs ? Licensure ? Research & Outreach ? Scholarships ? Services ? UO Resources ? Ways to Give ? Subpaths: ? Research Focuses ? Outreach Units ? Research Units Current Path: Research & Outreach ? research & outreach OREGON Impact The University of Oregon College of Education's research and outreach is nationally distinctive in its impact, scalability, and sustainability. The four research? signatures of the college are ? ? Assessment and accountability ? ? Curriculum, instruction, and learning ? ? Prevention and behavioral interventions ? ? Systemic and individual supports These four signature areas are the cornerstones of faculty expertise and interests, and provide a comprehensive, sytemic framework for addressing the college's mission: Making educational and social systems work for all. http://education.uoregon.edu/path.htm?setpath=9&setsubpath=1 (1 of 3)3/6/2005 7:03:12 AM University of Oregon, College of Education : Research & Outreach : Number One Faculty According to the U.S. News & World Report 2004? ?5 ratings of colleges of education, the UO College of Education is the most productive funded education research faculty in the nation, receiving nearly 1/3 more funding per faculty member than our nearest competitor. For seven of the last eight years, COE has been rated the NUMBER ONE public college of education faculty in receipt of funded research and training grants. Outreach Expertise at Work in Oregon Communities The UO College of Education's consistent performance at the top of national rankings reflects the importance and impact of outreach to schools and communities. Associated Links: Research Units The UO College of Education includes an alliance of nationally prominent centers, institutes, and affiliated research and outreach units. more ... Outreach Units The college's outreach units provide schools and community agencies access to faculty research and expertise. more ... Research Focuses Reading success, school safety and violence prevention, and educational reform are key areas of COE research activity. more ... ? 2005 University of Oregon College of Education. All rights reserved. Photographed at the University of Oregon College of Education http://education.uoregon.edu/path.htm?setpath=9&setsubpath=1 (2 of 3)3/6/2005 7:03:12 AM University of Oregon, College of Education : Research & Outreach : http://education.uoregon.edu/path.htm?setpath=9&setsubpath=1 (3 of 3)3/6/2005 7:03:12 AM University of Oregon, College of Education : Home : ? switch to graphic version : Internet Explorer 5.0+, Netscape 6.1+. Mozilla 1.1+ recommended University of Oregon College of Education text readers : click here to bypass navigation area Search for Header Paths ? Contact ? News ? Site Map User Paths ? Students ? Faculty ? Alumni ? Guests ? Prospective Students Resource Paths ? Home ? About Us ? Academic Programs ? Application ? Awards ? Dates ? Events ? Fields of Study ? Financial Aid ? Find Faculty ? Forms ? Jobs ? Licensure ? Research & Outreach ? Scholarships ? Services ? UO Resources ? Ways to Give Current Path: Home ? ?Do you think you want to be a teacher? ?Do you want to earn professional licensure? ?Would you like to help children, youth, and families? Take a look at what we do at the University of Oregon College of Education and see how we can help you change your life. Associated Links: UO HOME PAGE more ... COE Recruitment Seven faculty searches ongoing, more ... Building Project Plans more ... 2004-5 COE Rankings Faculty leads the nation. more ... Winter Update Inclement weather plan, safe ride, more ... Career Connections http://education.uoregon.edu/path.htm?setpath=19 (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:04:26 AM University of Oregon, College of Education : Home : Model program widens horizons for girls more ... ? 2005 University of Oregon College of Education. All rights reserved. Photographed at the University of Oregon College of Education http://education.uoregon.edu/path.htm?setpath=19 (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:04:26 AM University of Oregon News Releases UO COLLEGE OF EDUCATION NATIONALLY RANKED IN TOP FOUR April 5, 2002 Contact Ross West, (541) 346-2060; e-mail rwest@oregon.uoregon.edu Source: Linda Mears, College of Education, (541) 346-1392 EUGENE?The University of Oregon?s graduate program in education is one of the nation?s elite, according to U.S. News & World Report. The magazine?s annual Best Graduate Schools edition, which will arrive at newsstands on Monday, April 8, also gives high marks to the university?s Ph.D. programs in psychology and the biological sciences. "Once again, we are pleased with the University of Oregon?s showing in this survey," says UO President Dave Frohnmayer. "We already are attracting more outstanding students each year, and this kind of national visibility can only help to spread the word that our graduate programs are among the very best in the nation." The UO College of Education?s graduate program climbed to fourth among public schools and ninth nationally among all public and private graduate education colleges in the newest survey. It is ranked higher than any other college of education in the Northwest. For the third year in a row, the report also lists the UO special education graduate program as the third-best in the nation. Significantly, the College of Education has the most productive educational research faculty in the nation in terms of research and training grant funds awarded per faculty member. The college ranks third overall in the nation in receipt of research funding?$21.7 million in 2001?yet the research dollars earned per faculty member is 24 percent higher than its nearest competitor. "The national reputation of the College of Education reflects the extraordinary impact of the college?s exemplary faculty members," says Marty Kaufman, dean of the UO College of Education. "These rankings show their influence and contributions in shaping national policy, improving professional practice, and strengthening the capacity of schools and community agencies to meet the needs of children and families." These are the highest national rankings the UO College of Education has received. They come only 12 years after the college had to make drastic cuts in its teacher education programs following the passage of Measure 5, the property tax limitation approved by Oregon voters in 1990. http://comm.uoregon.edu/newsreleases/2002/20020405O.html (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:04:57 AM University of Oregon News Releases "It is remarkable to be ranked in the company of prestigious private schools and top public graduate schools of education that are much larger and have far more resources than we do," says Kaufman. "This would not be possible if we had not been successful in competing against other colleges of education around the country to secure federal funding for our research, training and outreach activities." Kaufman says the college has gained national visibility and presence through the quality of its academic programs and research partnerships with schools that have contributed to improved student behavior and academic performance. Researchers at the college contribute to federal, state and local programs to improve the teaching of reading and language arts, have developed innovative and effective programs to enhance school safety and are national leaders in curriculum assessment. In other ranking categories, the UO psychology department?s overall Ph.D. program ranked in the top tier of institutions at number 45. The clinical psychology graduate program was ranked 14th in the nation last year; the category was not ranked in the most recent survey. The UO also ranked high for biological sciences Ph.D. programs, coming in at number 54. The UO law school?s graduate program was ranked in the second tier?just below the top 50. The UO law school and many others nationwide, however, challenge the rankings, saying that they rely too heavily on test scores of admitted applicants and may ultimately discourage students from applying to the law school best suited for their individual needs. The UO Department of Architecture graduate program was ranked 15th in the last survey; new architecture rankings were not compiled this year either. The University of Oregon offers the only professionally accredited architecture graduate degree program in the state of Oregon. The U.S. News & World Report survey considers student selectivity, placement success, faculty resources and separate measures of institutional reputation. The rankings for business, education, engineering, law, and medicine are new each year, while other disciplines are ranked on an alternating basis. ?30? #O-5051/Local,OrDailies,PDX http://comm.uoregon.edu/newsreleases/2002/20020405O.html (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:04:57 AM University of Oregon Research The Vice President oversees the research and graduate activities of the University of Oregon, a Carnegie Doctoral/Research Extensive University and Oregon's only American Association of Universities (AAU) member. The UO is a comprehensive research university whose instructional, research, and public service programs advance scientific and humanistic knowledge while serving the educational, cultural, and economic needs of Oregon, the Pacific Northwest, and the Nation. The Office of the Vice President for Research provides administrative support for sponsored programs, including identification of funding opportunities, proposal submission, and contracts and grant administration, as well as the translation of basic research into commercial products or services through technology transfer and Riverfront Research Park activities. Sponsored program awards have grown to more than $70 million annually, supporting hundreds of active UO research, instruction, and community service projects. Principal recipients of these funds include the centers and institutes reporting to the Vice President. Units reporting to the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies include: RESEARCH UNITS GRADUATE STUDIES Centers and Institutes Graduate School RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION Corporate and Foundation Relations (CFR) Office of Research and Faculty Development (RFD) Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) Office of Research Services & Administration (ORSA) Riverfront Research Park (RRP) CONTACT INFORMATION: Office of the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies 203 Johnson Hall Phone: (541) 346-2090 Richard W. Linton, Vice President FAX: (541) 346-2023 Susan J. Brown, Executive Assistant This page maintained by Richard F. Hadley, Computer Support Specialist for the Graduate School. Last Update: October 6, 2004 http://research.uoregon.edu/3/6/2005 7:05:35 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 8 Summer 2002 College of Education: Impact of Scientific Research A Message From the Dean Martin Kaufman The U.S. News and World Report (2002?3) ranked the University of Oregon College of Education faculty as the most productive educational research faculty in the nation. Faculty research addresses critical educational and social issues including school safety and discipline, student and organizational performance and progress, violence and disruptive behavior, and reading improvement. This prevention-oriented research represents career-long programs of inquiry. Faculty research continuously informs, serves, and is accountable to its many stakeholders: children, families, citizens, practicing educators, psychologists, human-service providers, administrators, and legislators. The National Research Academy reports that scientific research involving humans in complex organizational systems such as schools and communities is "qualitatively more complex than inquiry in the natural sciences." Educational research does not have the high degree of controls typical of the hard sciences. Unlike bench science conducted in laboratories, educational research occurs in homes, community agencies, classrooms, and schools. Scientific educational research is an essential tool for addressing important problems, but it does not stand in isolation. A distinguishing feature of such research is the necessity of collaboration with school and community agencies. It strengthens the capacity of these agencies to implement and sustain research-based practices and policies. Oregon schools and our nation's education reform initiatives are fueled by the understanding, application and use of College of Education research and outreach services in more than 1,000 schools in eighteen states. The impact of this research is shaping federal and state policies, changing professional practice, and strengthening school and community capacity to deliver needed supports and services nationwide to children, families, and professionals. http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art8.html (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:06:18 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 8 Martin Kaufman Dean, College of Education University of Oregon Back to INQUIRY home page ?2002 University of Oregon http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art8.html (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:06:18 AM University of Oregon, College of Education : Home : ? switch to graphic version : Internet Explorer 5.0+, Netscape 6.1+. Mozilla 1.1+ recommended University of Oregon College of Education text readers : click here to bypass navigation area Search for Header Paths ? Contact ? News ? Site Map User Paths ? Students ? Faculty ? Alumni ? Guests ? Prospective Students Resource Paths ? Home ? About Us ? Academic Programs ? Application ? Awards ? Dates ? Events ? Fields of Study ? Financial Aid ? Find Faculty ? Forms ? Jobs ? Licensure ? Research & Outreach ? Scholarships ? Services ? UO Resources ? Ways to Give Current Path: Home ? faculty profiles ?Back ? 2005 University of Oregon College of Education. All rights reserved. Photographed at the University of Oregon College of Education http://education.uoregon.edu/faculty.htm (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:06:57 AM University of Oregon, College of Education : Home : http://education.uoregon.edu/faculty.htm (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:06:57 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 1 Summer 2002 A First Step toward Preventing School Violence Hill Walker Could anything have been done to prevent the murderous carnage at Columbine High School and right here in Oregon at Thurston High? And what about those less dramatic and less well publicized but far more common problems faced each year by hundreds of thousands of American students who may not resort to violence but who find themselves slipping further down "the wrong track"? "Problems can be avoided or at least minimized, but to do so we must start early," says Hill Walker, a University of Oregon professor of education who has studied behavior problems in children for 36 years. "One of the keys is the child's early success in school. This serves as a buffer against all kinds of destructive outcomes that may develop in later grades or later in life." When a young child demonstrating antisocial behavior enters school, these problems can become more elaborated. If that happens, the trajectory of failure has begun, he says. "Within a year or two the kid is rejected by peers and teachers. By age ten they are sometimes rejected by parents or caregivers. They have a high risk of dropping out of school in adolescence and with that their social risk status skyrockets," he explains. "They join a peer group that reinforces bad behavior, and this group socialization process leads to increased levels of http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art1.html (1 of 3)3/6/2005 7:07:33 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 1 deviancy, delinquency, teenage pregnancy, heavy drinking, and so on." These processes have been extensively described and analyzed by researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Center, where Walker serves as the chairman of the board of directors. Walker's work focuses on finding ways to help students avoid this downward spiral. "The minute they arrive at school?often in the first few weeks?those who are unprepared for schooling pop out; they are easily identifiable. That is the best point to intervene," he says. In 1994 Walker and Jeff Sprague (see article page 3) cofounded the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior in the UO College of Education. Professionals from a range of disciplines and agencies collaborate in the institute's many research efforts. The institute has gained broad national recognition?as well as more than $12 million in federal, state, and local funding?for its innovative work. A centerpiece of this effort is an early intervention program called First Step to Success. The program is geared for behaviorally at-risk children in kindergarten through second grade who show low levels of school readiness and are often disruptive or aggressive. A key to the three-month program is the use of a behavioral coach who sets the program up, operates it initially, and trains the teacher and parents in how to operate and sustain it. The child learns an adaptive pattern of behavior at school from the teacher. At home, the parents reinforce this message by teaching and developing school skills such as being prepared for school, getting along with others, learning to accept limits and doing assigned schoolwork. First Step is used in Australia, New Zealand and five Canadian provinces. It has been adopted in 20 states and is being translated into French and Japanese; a Spanish translation has been available for several years. In 1999 the Oregon legislature and the governor appropriated approximately $500,000 for the biennium to begin making First Step available to all Oregon schools and districts. In the most recent legislative session, this appropriation was renewed for another two-year cycle. Currently, First Step has been implemented in 30 of Oregon's 36 counties. "It has a huge bang-for-your-buck pay off," says Walker. Following the Thurston High School tragedy, Walker served on a panel of technical experts consulted in the preparation of President Clinton's Early Warning: Timely Response Guide for School Safety; 125,000 copies of this document were distributed to public and private schools across America. "The shock and tragedies of the school shootings of the 1990s produced a real openness in how schools look at safety and deal with at-risk youth. They began listening to the message like never before," he says. http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art1.html (2 of 3)3/6/2005 7:07:33 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 1 He notes that this message is the result of 30 years of extensive research into the most successful ways to approach the problem of at-risk kids. "We know what to do," Walker says. "The challenge now is to put what we know into effective action in schools." Walker believes that making that knowledge widely available is a good place to start. He's written or cowritten a number of books on such topics as school safety, school violence, even safe school architecture. His book Interventions for Academic and Behavior Problems (with coauthors Mark Shinn and Gary Stoner) is an indispensable aid for school psychologists across the country. In 2000 Walker received one of the UO's highest honors, the Presidential Medal, to recognize the impact of his work in addressing the needs of vulnerable populations. Back to INQUIRY home page ?2002 University of Oregon http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art1.html (3 of 3)3/6/2005 7:07:33 AM Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior Home Calendar Programs Grants Resources Publications Links Mailing List Faculty and Staff Contact Us Site Map UO Map Home View Jeff Spragues Latest Power Point Presentatiion Positive Behavior Supports in Secondary Schools Recommended Reading The National Educational Goals Panel International School Violence Prevention Association (a new organization dedicated to reducing school violence) How Safe Are Oregon Schools? - The Report of the Attorney General's School/Community Safety Coalition (PDF, 176 kB) Visit INQUIRY, the UO's on-line Research Magazine Psychology in Daily Life - Resilience in a Time of War: Articles Update and Progress Report on IVDB Activities and Achievements, June 2003 (PDF, 40 kB) i-safe (Educating and empowering the youth of America to safely and responsibly take control of their internet experiences) http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ivdb/ (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:08:15 AM Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior The mission of the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior (IVDB) is to empower schools and social service agencies to address violence and destructive behavior, at the point of school entry and beyond, in order to ensure safety and to facilitate the academic achievement and healthy social development of children and youth. IVDB personnel study the conditions, developmental processes, and risk- protective factors that are related to the prevention of violence, school failure, delinquency and other destructive outcomes among at-risk children and adolescents. Additional IVDB activities include program evaluation, outreach, training and technical support. University of Oregon ? College of Education Updated Monday, November 1, 2004 1:46 PM Contact: Webmaster http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ivdb/ (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:08:15 AM NASP Publications - Interventions Interventions for Academic and Behavior Problems II: Preventive and Remedial Approaches Edited by Mark R. Shinn, Ph.D.; Hill M. Walker, Ph.D.; and Gary Stoner, Ph.D. Serving the needs of students with academic and behavior problems is a major challenge for schools today. Increasingly pervasive issues such as violence, delinquency, illiteracy, and substance abuse may seem daunting, but no youngster is beyond help. Knowing what strategies work and how to implement them can help shift the balance between the risk and protective factors that shape a child?s ability to thrive. As the successor to one of NASP?s most popular publications, Interventions II offers the latest in evidence- based measures that have proven to create safer, more effective schools. The book emphasizes the interwoven nature of violence and academic underachievement, the importance of prevention and early intervention, the need to integrate intervention and remediation services in a seamless delivery system, and the enormous protective benefits of school success in all areas of a child?s life. Leading experts contributed to 38 updated and expanded chapters that reflect the changing climate in America?s schools in terms of: a71 School safety and violence prevention a71 Intervention and assessment strategies for social-emotional functioning a71 Reading, literacy, academic performance, and achievement a71 Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and intervention a71 System level strategies and policies a71 School-wide, small group, and individualized interventions Essential for educators, school-based and other mental health professionals, public safety officials, and community service providers. Click here to view the full: Table of Contents (PDF) Chapter 1: Structuring School-Based Interventions to Achieve Integrated Primary, Secondary, and http://www.nasponline.org/bestsellers/interventions.html (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:09:03 AM NASP Publications - Interventions Tertiary Prevention Goals for Safe and Effective Schools (PDF) http://www.nasponline.org/bestsellers/interventions.html (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:09:03 AM University of Oregon News Releases YOUTH VIOLENCE EXPERT TO RECEIVE UO PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL April 13, 2000 The University of Oregon for the first time will honor one of its own prominent faculty members, Hill Walker, education professor and nationally acclaimed youth violence expert, with a Presidential Medal during spring commencement ceremonies. Walker will receive his award at the university?s spring commencement at 12:30 p.m. Saturday, June 10, at Hayward Field, 1580 E. 15th Ave., on the UO campus. The Presidential Medal, one of the UO?s highest honors, recognizes individuals who have demonstrated a commitment to higher education through their long-standing and extraordinary support. Each medal is hand-forged in solid silver and is a replica of the myrtlewood medallion worn by the university president for ceremonial occasions such as commencement. Previous recipients include Thomas Autzen, Carolyn Chambers, Earle M. Chiles and Charles H. Lundquist. "The Presidential Medal recognizes individuals who have contributed significantly in a number of ways to the University of Oregon," says UO President Dave Frohnmayer. "Hill?s leadership in educational research and in developing both the Center on Human Development and the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior has been truly remarkable. His clear focus has been on using research findings to make a difference for children not only in the classroom but also in their lives. The impact of his work regionally and nationally on our children and on our schools makes it appropriate that he will be the first faculty member to receive this award." "Recognition and approval from those whom you respect most is one of the highest forms of praise we receive," Walker says. "President Frohnmayer?s continuing support, and that of the UO administration, has been a critical element in my attempts to address the needs of vulnerable populations. This award sends a wonderful message about this institution?s values and priorities in this regard. The award will certainly endure as a true hallmark event in my career." A nationally recognized and honored expert in behavior disorders in at-risk children and youth with disabilities, Walker has accounted for $27 million in federal grants competitively awarded to the most promising research since his professional career began at the UO in 1966. A former associate dean, since 1982 Walker has served as director of the UO Center on Human Development that has developed intervention programs for youths with handicaps and teacher training programs for implementing them. http://comm.uoregon.edu/newsreleases/latest/apr100/G0413100.html (1 of 3)3/6/2005 7:09:33 AM University of Oregon News Releases Walker and some of his colleagues in the past five years have refocused their work on school safety and early detection, intervention and prevention of youth violence. With co-director Jeffrey Sprague, a senior research associate, Walker founded the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior that has won funding from multiple federal agencies. The institute has successfully developed better tools for educators to use in identifying at-risk children early and preventing youngsters from turning to violence. Walker was a member of the recent national panel organized by the Clinton administration that developed the "Early Warning Timely Response" guide for detecting early warning signs of troubled youth. Several of the intervention programs he and his colleagues developed were cited as models of best practices in the October 1998 "White House Report Card on School Violence." Walker is the principal developer of the First Step to Success early intervention program for diverting at- risk children from a path leading to antisocial behavior and school failure. Five recent national reviews have recommended First Step, now used in 12 states, three Canadian provinces, Australia and New Zealand, as one of the best and most effective prevention programs. In the last legislative session, the Oregon Legislature appropriated approximately $500,000 to begin making the program available to Oregon school districts. During the past four years, Walker has served as a resource expert to the Oregon Legislature in the areas of youth violence prevention, school safety and early intervention. He serves on a number of national panels and has participated in strategic planning sessions sponsored by federal agencies to develop recommendations and legislative agendas for addressing school safety, delinquency and youth violence concerns. Walker graduated cum laude from Eastern Oregon University before receiving his master?s and doctoral degrees with honors at the UO. In his 33-year career on the UO faculty, Walker has produced more than 170 professional publications and scholarly works, including 13 books. His 1990 book, "Social Competence for Workers with Developmental Disabilities: A Guide to Enhancing Employment Outcomes in Integrated Settings," co-authored with Carl Calkins, received the National Book Award from the President?s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. The Council for Exceptional Children awarded its 1993 Research Award to Walker for his studies on at- risk children, and in May 1999 the Oregon School Psychology Association selected Walker as a co- recipient of its prestigious Friend of School Psychology Award in recognition of his research contributions to school safety. ?30? #G-1191/Local,PDX,PDXspecial,Special http://comm.uoregon.edu/newsreleases/latest/apr100/G0413100.html (2 of 3)3/6/2005 7:09:33 AM University of Oregon News Releases Go back to April 2000 index. Archive http://comm.uoregon.edu/newsreleases/latest/apr100/G0413100.html (3 of 3)3/6/2005 7:09:33 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 3 Summer 2002 Getting Readers on the Right Track Deborah Simmons Fifty years ago a mechanic who had a good working knowledge of how to fix an engine but limited literacy skills might have gotten by fairly well, but the world has changed dramatically since then. A mechanic today has manuals to consult, computer- based diagnostics to install and operate, not to mention insurance forms to deal with?all of which require solid reading skills. As the need for reading skills has increased, the level of student achievement in reading has not kept pace. Four out of ten American children are failing to read at the level appropriate to their grade. Eighty-five percent of students in special education classes are there because of reading problems. Reading researchers, such as the University of Oregon's Deborah Simmons, say that for children to do well in school their reading skills need to be successfully developed during kindergarten through third grade?and the earlier the better. "Up to the third grade, the idea is to teach children to read. After that time, the emphasis changes to using reading as a tool for learning. Nonreaders can't keep up, and they grow increasingly out of step with their peers," explains Simmons, an associate professor of special education in the College of Education's Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. During the past thirty years, an explosion of scientific research has changed ideas about the best methods of teaching reading. Educators now understand that the best strategy for helping children succeed is to prevent difficulties from arising in young students. "With full implementation of what we now know, 95 percent of kids should be able to read at http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art3.html (1 of 3)3/6/2005 7:10:10 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 3 grade level by grade 3," Simmons explains. Getting good information to classroom teachers?where it can do the most good?is central to the work of Simmons and her UO College of Education colleagues?Edward Kame'enui, Roland Good and David Chard. "Our work is to create a bridge," she says. Beginning with methods rigorously proven to teach reading successfully, they translate these methods into practical applications and deliver them to teachers through various kinds of training. Their work in the Bethel school district in Eugene, where many children come from impoverished backgrounds, illustrates the effectiveness of this approach. Only a few years ago about half of the Bethel students were not reading at grade level. UO reading specialists in conjunction with Bethel administrators and teachers intervened with kindergartners. The result? Eighty percent of the lowest performing readers moved into average ranges. Through professional development of the faculty, the UO researchers helped strengthen the school's resources so the school can deliver effective, research-based and, most important, successful reading programs. "Our goal is for schools to not need us any more. After several years of intense collaboration with the UO, Bethel teachers are now some of the best in the nation," Simmons explains. UO researchers are now taking this program of proven and effective methods into schools in Oregon, Hawaii, South Carolina, and Alabama; they also have worked with California and Minnesota schools. In addition to working in schools, UO researchers also work with states to design policy based on scientific evidence. At the national level, Kame'enui, Simmons and Good are active participants in efforts to support the recent No Child Left Behind federal legislation. To address problems of poor student performance, UO specialists became involved in California's efforts to increase student reading skills. In 1999 Simmons coauthored the California Reading/Language Arts Curriculum Framework for kindergarten through twelfth grade, a curriculum based on proven research. Since adopting a research-based program, scores have risen significantly in Los Angeles. How about Oregon? According to Simmons, Oregon students do fairly well in national assessments. "They perform in the middle of the pack" she says. During the past ten years, reading scores have been steady at the national level. A vital question for America is can this be improved? http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art3.html (2 of 3)3/6/2005 7:10:10 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 3 "Using the best of what we know, 70 to 80 percent of kids in schools are reading at their grade. We are working hard on getting the next 20 to 30 percent reading at that level," she says. "We know what to do. The next hurdle is getting it done." Back to INQUIRY home page ?2002 University of Oregon http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art3.html (3 of 3)3/6/2005 7:10:10 AM No Child Left Behind - ED.gov Grants & Contracts Financial Aid Research & Statistics Policy Programs Get More! Receive ED newsletters. Get answers to questions. Take our online survey. Overview Stronger Accountability More Local Freedom Proven Methods Choices for Parents A-Z Index ? Advanced Search About ED ? Offices ? Publications ? Budget ? Jobs ? Contacts Press Room ? Press Releases ? Speeches Help ? A-Z Index ? Site Map ? Technical Support ? File Viewers Recursos en espa?ol A-Z Index Find your way around the NCLB section. GO > NCLB: Expanding the Promise A guide to the President's 2006 education agenda. GO > Extra Credit & The Achiever Receive email updates on NCLB. GO > Teachers Toolkit, Parents Guide How NCLB supports teachers and what it means for parents. GO > Teacher to Teacher Teachers sharing ways to improve student learning. GO > NCLB Guidance Guidance and regulations on highly qualified teachers, charter schools, and more. GO > School Information Website Helps parents make good decisions about children's education. GO > Guide to Education & NCLB How NCLB improves learning for all students. GO > FOIA | Privacy | Security | Notices www.whitehouse.gov FirstGov.gov Results.gov http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml3/6/2005 7:11:31 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 4 Summer 2002 Beyond the #2 Pencil Improving Testing to Improve Education Gerald Tindal The progress a student makes in learning is not always accurately reflected in tests designed to measure that progress?and this is a problem. "Large-scale testing is really a priority in kindergarten through twelfth grade schools these days. Kids get tested and retested, and schools get report cards," says professor Gerald Tindal, an expert on large-scale testing (think #2 pencil) in the University of Oregon's College of Education. Currently, Oregon students take large-scale tests in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10. President Bush's No Child Left Behind education initiative calls for even more strenuous testing with assessments given annually in grades 3 through 8. Tindal, who edited a recent book, Large-Scale Assessment Programs for All Students, notes that student failure on these tests can have devastating repercussions not only for the individual student, but also for the teacher and even the school. "There is increasing pressure to perform well with many possible sanctions being used in different states: Failure to graduate for students, plans of assistance for teachers, and state takeover of schools?all on the basis of poor test performance," says Tindal, who recently addressed President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. The importance of the tests extends even into such practical and seemingly unrelated realms as real estate: School test scores can have an effect on real estate values in the neighborhoods the school serves. But teaching "to the tests" (as the practice is called) can have drawbacks, such as limiting a http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art4.html (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:12:07 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 4 student's exposure only to materials on the test and limiting performance to factual content. Tindal believes that other methods of testing?classroom assessment?result in fairer and more accurate testing and a better education for the child. "These systems regularly monitor students' progress on meaningful tasks?reading, writing, mathematics?not just how well they are learning the content tested on large-scale tests," Tindal says. "Classroom assessment also monitors the child's performance as it is happening, rather than retrospectively on an end-of-the-year testing date." Through classroom assessment, teachers can gain high-quality information when it can make a difference in their teaching and the student's learning. His work, funded mostly by federal grants with the Office of Special Education Programs and contracts with the Oregon Department of Education, has resulted in Oregon's Extended Assessment program. He designed this assessment system and now directs the testing of approximately 5,000 Oregon schoolchildren with disabilities each year: students with language or behavioral problems, those who are deaf or blind, or students who have limited abilities to take standard tests. Extended assessments replace filling in bubbles on a standardized test with a #2 pencil and extend the scale used to measure student achievement. Tindal's most recent research moves the testing environment to the computer, which expands the ways the test can be given or taken. "The idea of an extended assessment is to make sure that all kids have the opportunity to fairly demonstrate the skills they have." The lessons learned in working with students with disabilities have important implications for other groups of schoolchildren: English language learners, students at risk of failure, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. "Our educational system sometimes passes kids along through social promotion, even if they don't have the skills. The idea of more rigorous testing is to make sure they have the skills they need to succeed before they are passed. This is good for kids and teachers." How will newer, better tests address this problem? Improved tests, increasingly administered on computers with results nearly instantly tabulated via the Internet, will provide a clearer picture of ongoing progress, argues Tindal. "This approach will very accurately point out the specific educational needs of each child and, in time, should improve our ability to educate children," he says. Back to INQUIRY home page ?2002 University of Oregon http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art4.html (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:12:07 AM Archived: About, Executive Order 13227 -- The President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education Skip Navigation Recursos en Espa?ol, Privacy, Security, Notices > ED Home | Audience | Grants and Contracts | Financial Aid | Education Resources | Research and Stats | Policy My.ED.gov Inside PCESE PCESE Home About PCESE - Amendment to Executive Order 13227 - Section 1. Policy - Sec. 2. Establishment - Sec. 3. Duties and Commission Report - Sec. 4. Administration, Compensation, and Termination Members Staff Meetings & Hearings Reports Speeches Site map Commissions and Boards Commissions and Boards Home A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n Executive Order 13227?The President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education Executive Order on Excellence in Special Education President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. The education of all children, regardless of background or disability, while chiefly a State and local responsibility, must always be a national priority. One of the most important goals of my Administration is to support States and local communities in creating and maintaining a system of public education where no child is left behind. Unfortunately, among those at greatest risk of being left behind are children with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a landmark statute that asserts the rights of all children with disabilities to a free, appropriate public education. My Administration strongly supports the principles embodied in the IDEA and the goal of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities so that they can meet high academic standards and participate fully in American society. It is imperative that special education operate as an integral part of a system that expects high achievement of all children, rather than as a means of avoiding accountability for children who are more challenging to educate or who have fallen behind. Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (the "Commission"). The Commission shall be composed of not more than 19 members to be appointed by the President from the public and private sectors, as well as up to 5 ex officio members from the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. The members may include current and former Federal, State, and local government officials, recognized special education experts, special and general education finance experts, education researchers, educational practitioners, parents of children or young adults with disabilities, persons with disabilities, and others with special experience and expertise in the education of children with disabilities. The President shall designate a Chairperson from among the members of the Commission. The Secretary of Education shall select an Executive Director for the Commission. Sec. 3. Duties and Commission Report. (a) The Commission shall collect information and study issues related to Federal, State, and local special education programs with the goal of recommending policies for improving the educational performance of students with disabilities. In furtherance of its duties, the Commission shall invite experts and members of the public to provide information and guidance. (b) Not later than April 30, 2002 [ Please see Amendment to Executive Order 13227 ], the Commission shall prepare and submit a report to the President outlining its findings and recommendations. The report shall include, but need not be limited to: 1. An examination of available research and information on the effectiveness and cost of special education and the appropriate role of the Federal Government in special education http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/about.html (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:12:43 AM Archived: About, Executive Order 13227 -- The President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education programming and funding. The examination shall include an analysis of the factors that have contributed to the growth in costs of special education since the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (a predecessor of IDEA); 2. Recommendations regarding how Federal resources can best be used to improve educational results for students with disabilities; 3. A recommended special education research agenda; 4. An analysis of the impact of providing appropriate early intervention in reading instruction on the referral and identification of children for special education; 5. An analysis of the effect of special education funding on decisions to serve, place, or refer children for special education services and recommendations for alternative funding formulae that might distribute funds to achieve better results and eliminate any current incentives that undermine the goals of ensuring that children with disabilities receive a high-quality education; 6. An analysis of, and recommendations regarding, how the Federal Government can help States and local education agencies provide a high-quality education to students with disabilities, including the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel and the inclusion of children with disabilities in performance and accountability systems; 7. An analysis of the impact of Federal and State statutory, regulatory, and administrative requirements on the cost and effectiveness of special education services, and how these requirements support or hinder the educational achievement of students with disabilities; 8. An assessment of how differences in local educational agency size, location, demographics, and wealth, and in State law and practice affect which children are referred to special education, and the cost of special education; and 9. A review of the experiences of State and local governments in financing special education, and an analysis of whether changes to the Federal "supplement not supplant" and "maintenance of effort" requirements are appropriate. Sec. 4. Administration, Compensation, and Termination. (a) The Department of Education shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide administrative support and funding for the Commission. In addition, appropriate Federal agencies may designate staff to assist with the work of the Commission. To the extent permitted by law, Federal Government employees may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement to the Federal agency. (b) Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation but, while engaged in the work of the Commission, members appointed from among private citizens of the United States shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707), to the extent funds are available for such purposes. (c) The functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that are applicable to the Commission, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Department of Education in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the Administrator of General Services. (d) The Chairperson may from time to time prescribe such rules, procedures, and policies relating to the activities of the Commission as are not inconsistent with law or with the provisions of this order. (e) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submitting its final report, unless extended by the President. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, October 2, 2001. This page last modified?February 8, 2002 (pjk). Technical questions about the Web site: webmaster@inet.ed.gov Other inquiries/comments: customerservice@inet.ed.gov http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/about.html (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:12:43 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 5 Summer 2002 Making Safer Schools in Oregon: What Can We Do? Jeff Sprague A series of tragic school shootings in the 1990s?Columbine, Jonesboro, Thurston?brought Americans a new level of public concern about school violence and a new resolve that something had to be done. The membership of the National Association of Attorneys General committed to taking concrete action in every state. In Oregon, Attorney General Hardy Myers convened the School/Community Safety Coalition?made up of 30 education, emergency services, mental health and other specialists?with the task of reporting on the status of safety in Oregon schools. "What the attorney general wanted was a status report and some practical actions we might take to make effective improvements," says Jeff Sprague, cofounder of the University of Oregon's Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, and chief writer of the School/Community Safety Coalition's report. To gather information, Sprague developed a questionnaire and sent it to school principals across the state. Members of the institute carefully analyzed the returned surveys and other important data on school safety in Oregon. The final report, How Safe Are Oregon Schools? Status and Recommendations (also available by calling (503) 378- 6002), was published in March 2001. Recommendations included in the report were quickly passed into law by the state legislature. The resulting legislation set rules for the prevention of bullying and harassment in schools and established a hotline through which students can report threatened or potential violence. The legislature also followed the recommendation to create the Oregon Center for School Safety, which was established at the UO under Sprague's leadership. "The mission of the center is to give an annual assessment of school safety in Oregon, and to serve http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art5.html (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:13:28 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 5 as a clearinghouse for technical information, assistance and training that will help create healthier school environments." Sprague believes that producing the annual assessment will provide a very useful tool for educators, legislators, and others with concerns about improving Oregon schools. "Over the next several years an enormous amount of federal, state, and local resources will be invested in school safety and violence prevention," says Sprague, who, in addition to his academic credentials, worked for seven years as a classroom teacher. "It is extremely important that these precious resources be used to promote the adoption of best professional practices and that proven, research-based screening systems and early interventions be implemented to address them. The information developed in this report should help steer that course." The first annual report is due out this summer. Another of the center's efforts is to improve the process that schools use to report incidents of violence or rule infractions by students. Schools already must file multiple reports?often the same information in slightly different formats?with several federal agencies in a complex system that Sprague says can deter accurate reporting. "If we can streamline this process we can increase the usefulness and reliability of the information and eliminate some redundancy," Sprague explains. The study of school safety was begun as an academic field in the mid-1990s. Since that time Sprague has been instrumental not only in starting the UO's Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, but also the Journal of School Violence, for which he serves as a contributing editor. In June he helped launch the International School Violence Association. "There is a great deal of concern about safety in schools and those of us in the field are working to gather solid information on which efforts to improve the health of school environments can be based," Sprague says. "I feel like we are making an important contribution. It is very satisfying work." What trends does he see in how schools are responding to violence? "We seem to be evolving from narrow responses such as having metal detectors in schools to discussions about how best to insure health and well being of kids in schools," Sprague says. "Schools that make sure that milder forms of violence and bullying do not take place will likely not see larger events such as school shootings." Back to INQUIRY home page ?2002 University of Oregon http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art5.html (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:13:28 AM How Safe Are Oregon Schools? Status and Recommendations Prepared for The Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Coalition Hardy Myers, Attorney General March 2001 Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 2 Acknowledgements We wish to thank the following individuals for their contributions to this important paper: ? Bob Schlegel, Oregon Secondary Principals, chair of white paper committee. ? Jeffrey Sprague Ph.D., University of Oregon Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, primary writer. Steve Stieber Ph.D. and Stephen Smith M.S., data analysis, Arden Munkres, graphic artist. ? Members of the white paper committee: Ozzie Rose, Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, Oscar Vega, Salem-Keizer Public Schools, John Lenssen, Oregon Department of Education, Jeffrey Sprague, Bob Schlegel and Hardy Myers, Attorney General. ? The entire School/Community Safety Coalition for comments and assistance. ? Principals of Oregon schools who responded to the Oregon School Safety Survey. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 3 Executive Summary In the winter of 2000, Attorney General Hardy Myers convened an Oregon school and community safety coalition. This coalition involved participants from a variety of organizations representing schools, youth serving agencies, public safety, state, county and local government, school boards, and others (see Attachment A). The goals of the coalition were to (1) analyze the status of school/community safety in Oregon, (2) compile a resource guide of prevention, education, policy and program materials, including online information, that focused on programs and partnerships between schools and communities intended to ensure a safe school environment, and (3) provide a forum for educators, law enforcement personnel, and representatives from other community resources to discuss issues of mutual concern, suggest legislation and develop policy recommendations. Regarding the threat of serious violence, most schools in Oregon and the Nation are safe places for today?s children and youth and the adults therein who serve and support them (U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education Annual Report on School Safety, 2000). In fact, notwithstanding the disturbing reports of multiple shooting incidents in our schools, they are becoming even safer in light of a number of important indicators presented in this paper. This paper provides important statistics regarding the status of school safety in Oregon. We looked at administrative and management practices of the school, family and community characteristics, and student characteristics. A significant activity in our analysis of school safety in Oregon was to survey building administrators across the state regarding their perceptions of risk indicators underlying the four sources of vulnerability. We also looked at data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), The Oregon Progress Board, and other essential sources. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 4 Recommendations for Oregon Schools The recommendations are derived from the findings reported in the body of the report and reflect the wisdom and consensus of the coalition. This report is not intended to be a directive to policymakers but rather it is intended to inform and educate them and further assist them in their deliberations about public policies and use of resources. The recommendations included in this report are predicated on the assumption that the legislature must allocate funding for suggested new programs or expansion of existing programs. The committee does not support the creation of legislative mandated programs without concomitant funding separate from the State School Fund appropriation. Our recommendations focus on the school as a critical context for action. Clearly, legislation and policy that better supports healthy family and community development is needed to accompany efforts to make schools safer, healthier and violence free. Prevention of school violence will require a multifaceted approach including progress monitoring, whole-school approaches, early prevention programs, family supports, school security, and community and family collaboration and contribution. 1. Encourage Oregon schools to use comprehensive approaches to reduce bullying, harassment, and mean spirited teasing, including school wide social skills curriculum (interpersonal conflict resolution, anger management, empathy, drug, alcohol, and tobacco resistance, dating violence, etc.). Bullying and harassment in schools emerged as a primary concern of school administrators. While exemplary programs exist in some schools, their use is not widespread and schools face challenges with access to funding for staff development. 2. Establish an Oregon Center for School Safety. We recommend establishing a school safety center in Oregon to accomplish the following: Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 5 ? Provide technical assistance, training, and information to schools regarding research-based strategies for violence prevention and response. ? Track the status of school safety indicators in Oregon schools in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Education, Oregon Health Division, and the Oregon Progress Board. ? Seek federal funding for school safety initiatives ? Report annually to the governor and legislature on the status of school safety in Oregon. 3. Encourage school wide discipline and safety programs for all schools (with appropriate staff training and accountability to reductions in discipline). Research clearly indicates that a well- disciplined school that provides abundant positive interactions between adults and children is safer and helps children grow into well-adjusted, achieving adults. Oregon schools are struggling to implement these research validated programs but often lack resources for staff release for training and planning purposes, access to expert training, and systems for evaluating the effects of these interventions. 4. Support early prevention of antisocial behavior. Researchers at the University of Oregon?s Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior have published the results of an evaluation of an intervention program (First Step to Success) that they developed for kindergartners and first graders who showed the early signs of antisocial behavior. Currently supported by the Oregon Commission on Children and Families, the legislature should continue to support this important and powerful intervention program. 5. Examine policies and procedures regarding school security practices in Oregon schools. Oregon schools need to ensure that buildings are secure and prepared for crisis events. We recommend regular evaluation of these plans, including attention to principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 6. Encourage risk-reducing architectural school design and assessment of existing buildings. Deteriorating school facilities and schools designed without adequate attention to school security and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) practices can Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 6 impede learning and contribute to the risk of violent behavior. To address these concerns, we recommend that state and local jurisdictions work toward application of CPTED assessments for all Oregon schools and development of CPTED expertise in schools and law enforcement agencies. 7. Establish standards for school resource officers (SRO'S) in schools. Schools should adopt policies or protocols which include law enforcement in a cooperative, collaborative, and holistic approach in issues related to school safety where there has been a report of criminal conduct, actual criminal conduct, or an attempt at criminal conduct. Incidents of criminal conduct occurring on school property or having a relationship to school property or activities should be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. 8. Encourage community and family collaboration. Schools have been the focus of attention in recent years regarding school safety, but clearly are only part of the problem (and solution). To support community and family collaboration, we recommend include violence prevention courses in Oregon teacher training programs (including ongoing professional development for inservice teachers) and assisting schools to work in partnership with families and communities to build a school climate that honors and respects differences in cultures, groups and individuals. Conclusion Emerging public concerns regarding the safety of students in the school setting coupled with recent school shootings and media coverage of youth violence in general are generating enormous pressures on educators and communities to take ownership of the problems presented by antisocial, delinquent and violent youth. Over the next several years, an enormous amount of federal, state, and local resources will be invested in school safety and violence prevention. It is Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 7 extremely important that these precious resources be used to promote the adoption of best professional practices and that proven, research based screening systems and early interventions be implemented in addressing them. We hope that by adopting the recommendations of this white paper, a major positive impact can be achieved in making Oregon schools safer and violence free. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 8 How Safe are Oregon Schools? Status and Recommendations In the winter of 2000, Attorney General Hardy Myers convened an Oregon school and community safety coalition. This coalition involved participants from a variety of organizations representing schools, youth serving agencies, public safety, state, county and local government, school boards, and others (see Attachment A). The goals of the coalition were to (1) analyze the status of school/community safety in Oregon, (2) compile a resource guide of prevention, education, policy and program materials, including online information, that focused on programs and partnerships between schools and communities intended to ensure a safe school environment, and (3) provide a forum for educators, law enforcement personnel, and representatives from other community resources to discuss issues of mutual concern, suggest legislation and develop policy recommendations. The purpose of this white paper is to describe the status of school safety in Oregon and to make appropriate legislative and policy recommendations, based upon research, data, and the results of a statewide survey of Oregon school administrators. Introduction Schools that are effective also are schools that are safe and less vulnerable to violence (Morrison, Furlong, & Morrison, 1994). Effective schools have (a) clearly defined goals in a school improvement plan, (b) close monitoring and feedback regarding progress toward these goals, (c) high academic expectations for all students, (d) clear and positive expectations for behavior, (e) high levels of student bonding and engagement to the schooling process, and (f) meaningful involvement of parents and the community (Braaten, 1997). Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 9 Regarding the threat of serious violence, most schools in Oregon and the Nation are safe places for today?s children and youth and the adults therein who serve and support them (U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education Annual Report on School Safety, 2000). In fact, notwithstanding the disturbing reports of multiple shooting incidents in our schools, they are becoming even safer in light of a number of important indicators presented in this paper. Ninety percent of American schools report no serious violent crime and 43% of schools report no crime. There has been a steady decline (from 12 to 7%) in percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon to school. Thefts at school have declined from 95 per 1000 to 58 per 1000. It also is true that some of our schools have crime and violence problems and many schools are dealing with more problem behaviors, such as bullying and harassment, drug and alcohol use, the effects of family disruption, poverty, and so on (Annual Report on School Safety, 2000). In light of these issues, we must consider the full range of safety concerns in our schools (e.g. weapon carrying, threats, fighting). It is very unlikely that we would tolerate the same safety problems in our airports, courts, churches, shopping malls, and so forth. Reducing the prevalence of school violence to near zero in Oregon is a most worthy goal for our schools as we begin the 21st century (Walker & Eaton-Walker, 2000). Nationally, there is considerable evidence that schools are becoming safer. Since 1992, the total number of school-associated violent deaths has decreased. There is less than one in a million chance of violent death in school. The most common crime in schools is theft, which has been decreasing since 1993, as have student weapon carrying and physical fighting. All of these declines mirror drops in the overall crime rate in society. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 10 Too many children and school personnel are the victims of violent crime in schools, weapon carrying remains a concern, students report that they do not always feel safe, drug and alcohol use on school property has not subsided, and a wide range of disciplinary problems continue to impede teaching and learning in schools (Annual Report on School Safety, 2000). Antisocial behavior, youth violence, and school safety are of concern in Oregon and the Nation. An understanding of the complex, interconnecting issues and variables affecting and underlying these concerns is necessary for (1) identifying antisocial and violent youth early in their school careers, (2) assessing the status and needs of our schools regarding safety, security and discipline, and (3) developing strategies for intervening effectively in the context of schools, communities and families. To begin, we present an outline of the critical features that affect school safety. What is a Safe School? Four Sources of Vulnerability to School Violence Defining school safety as the absence of violent behavior is a primary concern, however such a narrow focus may lead policymakers and other stakeholders to adopt expensive, but narrowly focused strategies. If the only goal is to prevent school shootings, overuse of law enforcement and/or school security technology may be the result (Green, 1999). While often necessary and appropriate, these approaches need to be balanced with the overall mission of schooling, which is to promote academic excellence, socialization, citizenship, and healthy lives for our children. Students with antisocial and violent behavior present serious risks to the safety and climate of any school. However, the presence of substantial numbers of antisocial students in a school is not the only risk to its safety. Figure 1 illustrates four major sources of vulnerability to the safety of school settings. These include 1) the physical layout of the school building, and the Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 11 Figure 1 Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 11 supervision/use of school space, 2) administrative, teaching and management practices of the school, 3) the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood(s) served by the school, and 4) characteristics of the students enrolled in the school. This section defines and outlines each source of vulnerability and provides sample measures for assessing it. Typically, in the search for school safety solutions, the lion?s share of educators? attention is focused on student backgrounds, attitudes, and behavioral characteristics. However, the remaining three sources of vulnerability in figure 1, can be very powerful in accounting for variations in the relative safety of today?s schools. Ensuring the safety and security of students and staff members in today?s schools is a very daunting task that requires a comprehensive approach. Our society?s myriad social problems (abuse, neglect, fragmentation, rage, interpersonal violence, and so forth) are spilling over into the schooling process at an alarming rate. It is essential that school officials address each of these four areas systematically in order to create safe and effective school environs. With proper and thorough assessment, school officials can identify, plan for, and reduce the risk factors that move schools in the direction of potential violence and reduced safety. Physical Layout of the School Building and Grounds. Perhaps the most neglected of the four sources of vulnerability displayed in figure 1 is the architectural design of the school building and surrounding grounds (Schneider, Walker & Sprague, 2000). School safety and security were not dominant concerns when most of the current school facilities of our Nation were designed. School planners have paid relatively less attention to this area in the past, perhaps because school safety was not a pressing issue and ranked lower on the list of priorities that drive school design. However, the knowledge base required for designing safer schools has existed for sometime. This ecological knowledge base, relating to the influence of the social and physical Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 11 environment on safety and security, has emerged over the past four decades (see Schneider et al., 2000, for a recent review). This knowledge has been organized and formulated into a set of principles known as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED helps us to understand how the physical environment affects human behavior. Thus, it can be used to improve the management and use of physical spaces in both school and non-school settings. It has been used extensively in the prevention and deterrence of criminal behavior in a range of community settings. CPTED also has been applied with considerable effectiveness in making school sites safer and more secure in recent years (Schneider, Walker, & Sprague, 2000). CPTED assessment procedures are relatively straightforward (See Crowe, 1991; Schneider et al., 2000). Every school can benefit from an assessment of its environment in order to determine whether the school is a safe and secure place to learn and work. A school site at-risk for crime or violence carries an obvious need for such an assessment, but even campuses that seem at first glance to be orderly and secure may, when inspected, be found to present a multitude of risks. The assessment should begin with tools such as the National School Safety Center?s School Crime Assessment Tool (Stephens, 1995) or the Oregon School Safety Survey (Sprague, Colvin & Irvin, 1995). These tools allow stakeholders to give input on particular areas of concern to them. Following this initial assessment, it is typical to employ a CPTED expert (local law enforcement or security personnel) to do a walk through of the school site and provide an intensive site assessment. In the wake of recent, highly publicized school shootings, some have discussed a high- security, architectural design using metal detectors, locked gates, video surveillance cameras, etc. However, a well-designed school should look like a place to learn?not a locked-down fortress. Prudent application of CPTED principles can satisfy both perspectives. Architectural features Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 11 that allow school staff members natural surveillance, while providing controlled access to the school provides for an environment that can reduce violence risk while enhancing, rather than detracting from, the learning environment. The Administrative, Teaching and Management Practices of the School. Many school practices can contribute to the development of antisocial behavior in children and youth. These include, among others: (a) ineffective instruction that results in academic failure; (b) inconsistent and punitive classroom and behavior management practices; (c) lack of opportunity to learn and practice positive interpersonal and self-management skills (e.g., conflict resolution, empathy, anger management); (d) unclear rules and expectations regarding appropriate behavior; (e) failure to correct rule violations and reward adherence to them; (f) failure to individualize instruction to adapt to individual differences, and perhaps, most importantly, (g) a failure to assist students from at risk backgrounds to bond with and participate fully in the schooling process (Colvin, Kameenui, & Sugai, 1993; Hawkins et al., 1999; Mayer, 1995; Walker & Eaton-Walker, 2000; Walker et al., 1996). Schools have been identified as an ideal setting for organizing an effort against the increasing problems of children and youth who display antisocial behavior (Mayer, 1995; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Walker et al., 1996). Effective interventions must be implemented that: (a) apply a multiple systems approach to school wide discipline aimed at all students, (b) support educators in today's classrooms and schools, and (c) adopt and sustain evidence-based, cost efficient practices that actually work as intended (Gottfredson, 1997; Walker et al., 1996). Effective approaches to school-wide discipline and management, for example, include (a) systematic social skills instruction (conflict resolution education, drug and alcohol resistance curriculum, etc.), (b) academic/curricular restructuring, (c) positive, behaviorally based Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 11 interventions, (d) early screening and identification of antisocial behavior patterns, and (e) alternatives to traditional suspension and expulsion (Biglan, 1995; Lipsey, 1991; Mayer, 1995; Sprague, Sugai, & Walker, 1998; Sugai & Horner, 1994; Tobin & Sprague, 2000; Tolan & Guerra, 1994; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; Walker et al., 1996). We recommend that program selection be based upon a thorough assessment of school discipline practices (Sugai, Todd, & Horner, 1999), disciplinary referral patterns (Sugai, Sprague, Horner & Walker, 2000), academic instruction, whole school social skills teaching, and so on. Thorough needs assessments can guide planning, avoid overlapping or conflicting services, and serve as the basis for evaluation of change. Accomplishing high magnitude change(s) in schools requires an appropriate and sustained investment in staff development (Hawkins et al., 1999; Sprague, Walker, Golly, White, Myers, & Shannon, in press). The Characteristics of the Surrounding Neighborhood. The contexts in which school- influencing risk factors exist include the family, neighborhood, community and, finally, the larger society (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992). Across these contexts, contributing risk factors can include poverty, dysfunctional and chaotic family life, drug and alcohol abuse by primary caregivers, domestic abuse, neglect, emotional and physical abuse, negative attitudes toward schooling, the modeling of physical intimidation and aggression, sexual exploitation, media violence, the growing incivility of our society, and so on. These risk factors provide a fertile breeding ground for the development of antisocial attitudes and coercive behavioral styles among the children who are pervasively exposed to them. Assessment of neighborhood and family characteristics can be accomplished in large measure by using archival data collected (often routinely) by law enforcement, child protective Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 11 services, juvenile authorities, and health departments. We will illustrate the constructive use of these information sources later in this paper. The Characteristics of the Students Enrolled in the School. Our schools are made unsafe by the attitudes, beliefs, and dangerous behavior patterns of antisocial children and youth that attend them. These characteristics are stimulated by the risk factors listed above regarding family, community, and society. The task of schools, families and communities is to promote resilience, teach skills for success, and develop positive alternatives to replace the maladaptive forms of behavior the child has learned to use in achieving his or her social goals. In any school, we would expect to find three relatively distinct populations of students. These include (a) typically developing students, (b) those at-risk for behavioral and academic problems, and (c) high-risk students who already manifest serious behavioral and academic difficulties (Sprague and Walker, 2000). Differing but complimentary approaches are necessary to address the needs of these three student groups in any school. Figure 2 illustrates characteristic distribution of students of each type and indicates the level of intervention each needs. Assessing and identifying the characteristics of students in the school includes identifying rates of juvenile arrests or contacts with law enforcement, the frequency and severity of discipline referrals in school, the proportion of students in poverty, academic achievement levels, social skills development, and so forth. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 18 Figure 2 Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 18 As seen above, the characterization of a school as safe or unsafe is a complex task involving assessment of several, interrelated factors. In the remainder of this paper we outline the status of school safety in Oregon and provide recommendations for lawmakers, schools, parents, students, and other Oregon citizens. This section will retain the organizational framework of the "four sources," using data from multiple sources to illustrate risk and protective factors in Oregon schools. How Safe are Oregon Schools Today? This section will provide important statistics regarding the status of school safety in Oregon, using the four sources of vulnerability as an organizing framework. We will look at administrative and management practices of the school, family and community characteristics, and student characteristics. A significant activity in our analysis of school safety in Oregon was to survey building administrators across the state regarding their perceptions of risk indicators underlying the four sources of vulnerability. The Oregon School Safety Survey In order to assess important safety concerns in Oregon schools we sent the Oregon School Safety Survey (Sprague, Colvin, & Irvin, 1995, Attachment B) to all school principals in Oregon. The surveys were mailed in the Spring of 2000 and provided an opportunity to repeat and compare results from the same survey administered in 1995. Thus, we had the opportunity to compare the school principal?s perceptions of school safety in Oregon before and after the school violence tragedy in Springfield, Oregon and other schools in the United States. Previous research has shown that principal?s perceptions of the indicators on this survey are not substantially different from those of teachers and parents in the same building (Sprague, Colvin & Irvin, 1995). For this reason, and to save time and resources, only school principals were surveyed. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 Perceptions of school safety. We mailed the Oregon School Safety Survey (Sprague, Colvin, & Irvin, 1995) to all school principals in Oregon. The mailing list was provided by the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) and COSA mailed the surveys at their expense. The survey included a letter from Attorney General Hardy Myers, Ozzie Rose, and Executive Director of COSA, and Jeffrey Sprague, co-director of the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior. One Thousand One Hundred Surveys were mailed and 432 were returned completed for a return rate of 39.3%. This rate was similar to that obtained in the 1995 administration of the survey. Of the surveys returned, 236 (54.6%) were from elementary schools, 66 (15.3%) were from middle schools, and 81 (18.9%) were from high schools. The remaining eleven percent were returned by K-8 (n=15), K-12 (n=13), 6-12 (n=7), and Alternative Schools (n=11). This return pattern represents roughly the proportion of schools in Oregon. The survey asked respondents to rate the extent of 15 risk and 15 protective factors shown to increase or buffer against school violence and discipline problems. Risk factors included poverty, child abuse, graffiti, and bullying, deteriorating physical facilities. The survey is included as an attachment to this paper. Protective factors included positive teacher-student relationships, parent involvement, student supervision, and high academic expectations. A rating scale of 1 (not at all) to 4 (extensive) was used. In the 2000 administration of the survey, principals also were asked to rate on a scale of 1-4 (1 = low, 4 = high) the extent to which school safety, school discipline and student behavior, academic performance, and special education services were a priority for change or improvement in their school. Finally, principals responded to five open-ended questions: 1. What is the most pressing safety need in your school? 2. What school safety activities does your school do best? 3. What topics are most important for training and staff development? Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 4. What are the biggest barriers to improved school safety measures? 5. What other factors not included in this survey do you believe affect school safety? What did the principals tell us? Figures 3 & 4 provide results from the 2000 administration of the survey. Overall, principals rated risk factors as minimal (average of 2.16) with larger schools (more than 1000 students) indicating slightly higher risk (average 2.36). Elementary schools rated risk as lower (average 2.06) with high schools indicating minimal to moderate risk. K-12 schools provided the lowest overall risk ranking (average 1.95). The average rating for protective factors in participating schools was 2.99 (moderate to extensive) with larger schools (More than 1000 students) indicating the highest overall average (3.16, moderate to extensive). K-12 schools posted the highest protective factor ratings (3.04, moderate). These data are consistent with national statistics indicating that students and teachers in K-12 and K-8 schools report feeling safer and experiencing less victimization (Kingery, 1999). Figure 3: A Risk Factor Ra School T and Size 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 All LT 500 LT 1000 MT 1000 Elem Middle High K-8 K-12 Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 Table 1 below provides a comparison of the top five rated risk and protective factors from Oregon principals in 1995 and 2000. While top-rated risk factors in 1995 focused primarily on issues outside the school (poverty, transiency, child abuse), the 2000 ratings focused on school bullying and deteriorating school facilities, ahead of poverty, transiency and child abuse in the home. Top rate protective factors in 1995, an indicator of what schools do best to support students, included positive teacher-student relationships, positive school climate, school discipline, high academic expectations, and student supervision. The rankings changed dramatically in 2000 and included response to conflict, suicide prevention programs, staff training, high academic expectations, and parent involvement. These changes likely reflect renewed emphasis on staff development as a result of academic reforms, increased funding for school discipline reform, school safety initiatives, and an emphasis on violence prevention resulting from the school shootings in Oregon and elsewhere. Figure 4: Average Protective Factor Rating By School Size and Type 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 All LT 500 LT 1000 MT 1000 Elem Middle High K-8 K-12 Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 Table: 1: Top rated risk and protective factors from full sample Top Risk Factors Top Protective Factors 1995 Mean 2000 Mean 1995 Mean 2000 Mean Poverty 2.96 Bullying 3.1 Teacher- Student Relationships 3.63 Response to Conflict 3.6 Transiency 2.90 Deteriorating Facilities 3.1 Climate 3.60 Suicide Prevention 3.6 Child Abuse 2.56 Poverty 2.9 Discipline 3.60 Staff Training 3.5 Truancy 2.52 Transiency 2.8 Academic Expectations 3.59 Academic Expectations 3.4 Bullying 2.47 Child Abuse in the Home 2.4 Supervision 3.52 Parent Involvement 3.4 Improvement priorities. Principals also were asked to rate on a 1-4 (1=low, 4=high) scale the extent to which school safety, school discipline, student behavior, academic performance, and special education services were a priority for change or improvement in their school. Figures 5 & 6 list the outcomes of these responses. Figure 5: Improvement Priorities by School Size 0 1 2 3 4 All LT500 LT1000 MT1000 1=low, 4=high Safety Discipline Academics SPED Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 Overall, principals rated improvement of the academic program as their highest priority (average =3.29), followed by school safety and discipline improvement (average = 2.25 and 2.21 respectively). Improvement of special education was rated lowest (average=2.56). This pattern was repeated for schools with less than 500 students (n=285). In schools with 500-1000 students (n=100), school safety was rated higher than academics, school discipline and special education. Schools with over 1000 students (n=37) rated school safety, academics, school discipline, and academics in priority order. Elementary principals rated academics highest, followed by school safety, discipline, and special education. Middle school principals rated academics, discipline, safety, and special education. High School principals rated highest safety, discipline, academics, and special education. K-8 schools rated academics highest, followed by discipline and safety. Responses to open-ended questions. Principals were able to respond to six open-ended questions: 1. What is the most pressing safety need in your school? Figure 6: Improvement Priorities by School Type 0 1 2 3 4 ES MS HS K-8 1=low, 4=high Safety Discipline Academics SPED Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 2. What safety activities does your school do best? 3. What topics are most important for training and staff development? 4. What are the biggest barriers to improved school safety measures? 5. What other factors not included in this survey do you believe affect school safety? Replies to the questions were categorized by use of key words or conceptual clusters. For example, separate replies of ? fire drills," ?earthquake drills? and ? lock down procedures? were clustered in the category ?emergency procedures.? Not all respondents answered all questions. Additionally, some individuals gave multiple answers to some questions. In those cases, each discrete answer was categorized as a separate reply. What is the most pressing safety need in your school? Twenty six percent of the respondents rated establishing and improving building security followed by 23% for dealing with inappropriate student behavior. The remaining issues included dealing with non-violent hazards, additional resources and services, and behavior management systems. Figures 7 & 8 provide a graphic illustration of these findings. Figure 7: Most Pressing School Safety Needs 26% 12% 13% 12% 23% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Establishing / Improving Building Security Dealing w/Non-Violent Hazards Additonal Resources / Services Behavior Management Systems Dealing w/ Inappropriate Student Behavior % Responding Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 What safety activities does your school do best? Regarding best school safety activities, emergency procedures (43%) were listed most often, followed by in school primary prevention plans (38%)(e.g., violence prevention curriculum), and behavior management programs (18%). What topics are most important for training and staff development? Most important staff development and training topics included (in order) behavior management systems, in-school primary prevention programs, how to deal with inappropriate behavior, emergency procedures, and academics. What are the biggest barriers to improved school safety measures? By far, the most frequently cited barrier was additional resources (56%). Figure 9 provides a graphic display of how these comments were distributed. Implications of the survey results. The findings are consistent with national data indicating that schools, overall, are relatively safe for students regarding risk of serious, violent Figure 8 Biggest Barriers to School Safety 11% 11% 56% 14% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Building Security Non-Violent Hazards Additional Resources Non-Supportive Parental, Community Factors Civil Authority/Agency Suppor t % Responding Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 victimization, and that bullying, harassment and mean-spirited teasing remain substantial concerns (Annual Report on School Safety, 2000; Sprague, Colvin & Irvin, 1996). Principals? ratings highlight an increased recognition and emphasis on changing how students interact with each other and with the adults in the school. Nationally, nearly 40% of middle and high school students report that bullying, harassment and mean-spirited teasing negatively affect their academic performance, attendance, and peer relationships. This pattern of chronic negative interactions is strongly related to more serious forms of violence and delinquency in schools and communities (Colvin et al., 1993; Patterson, Reid & Dishion, 1992). As such, changing the culture of harassment and bullying in schools would likely move us closer to the goal of violence free schools. Supporting schools to offer school-wide instruction in conflict resolution, anger management, and empathy increasingly is recognized as effective in improving school climate. The protective factor ratings and open-ended comments reflect an increased emphasis from principals on supporting staff (staff development) and children's and families? mental health needs (suicide prevention and parent involvement). State of the art recommendations for creating safe schools emphasize family and community partnerships and involvement in support of students, teachers and families (Hawkins et al., 2000). In addition, response to conflict emerged as a top protective factor. This would indicate recognition by building leaders that bullying and harassment in schools are major concerns. Clearly, ongoing monitoring and assessment of this problem, along with appropriate response is warranted. Oregon's Families: Key Safety and Health Indicators The Oregon Progress Board provides outcome-based indicators of family and community health in our state. The publication To The Well Being of Oregonians: Public Policy for a Changing Economic and Social Context (Kissler & Fore, 1999) focuses on three broad social outcome indicators: social capital, social problems, and other social problem indicators. These Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 indicators include birth cohort size, stress on families, juvenile arrest rates, teen pregnancy rate, overall crime, non-marital birth rate, and child abuse rates. The Well Being Report shows a strong correlation between two factors (large birth cohorts and stress on families) and negative outcomes such as, juvenile arrest rates, non-marital birth rates, and overall crimes. These effects appear 15 years after the birth year of the cohort. In other words, children born into families (divorce, non-marital births, low parental monitoring and engagement) stressed by economic and social factors are more likely to engage in high-risk behavior (delinquency, high-risk sex) as adolescents are. Oregon has seen dramatic increases in all of these negative outcomes in the past 20 years. Economic growth and prosperity has not been associated with social well being. From 1975 to 1997, Oregon has seen increases in stress on families, juvenile arrest rates, and non-marital birth rates for teens, child abuse rates, and adult crime rates. Kissler and Fore conclude that the increase in divorce, the alarming rise in non-marital births and the faster pace of modern life have left too many children in single-parent and intact families to be raised with less parental attention and adult supervision. Single parent families (result of non-marital births and divorce) tend to spend less time with their children. Reduced parental monitoring and engagement is a significant predictor of negative outcomes such as delinquency and pregnancy. Children and youth that are not as engaged with parents are more susceptible to negative influences from peers and the media. These data do not imply that single parents can never give as much love, warmth and attention as an intact family can provide. Rather, these findings simply reflect the fact that it is harder for one parent, fulfilling multiple roles, to do as much as two parents. There is a strong need to address this difficult challenge to child rearing in Oregon. Oregon's Children and Youth: Key Indicators of Safety and Health Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 The Oregon Department of Human Services, Health Division, regularly administers the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) to a representative group of Oregon adolescents. In addition to these data, the Division uses additional national and state data to describe the behaviors and experiences of Oregon Youth (Hopkins, 1999). The YRBS consists of self- reported demographic and behavioral data from Oregon high school students. We present data here to provide a snapshot of school violence, safety, and health in Oregon. We want to strongly acknowledge that most Oregon students do not engage in serious violence, substance abuse, or weapon carrying but that many students do. In this regard, it is important to note that some students place themselves at risk because they are perpetrating illegal or high-risk behavior while others are at-risk by attending school, or interacting with, those who display these behaviors. In 1997, nearly 35,000 Oregon students participated in the YRBS, the largest sample ever. Some important findings include: ? Approximately 1 in 5 (19%) Oregon adolescents reported carrying a weapon to school (guns, knives, and clubs) in a 30-day period. ? Younger, (e.g., freshmen) and minority students were most likely to carry a weapon to school. ? Students in schools with lower socioeconomic rank were most likely to report weapon carrying. ? Students who did not have caring support from an adult, were victims of physical abuse, smoked heavily, used alcohol or drugs, had multiple sexual partners or attempted suicide were most likely to report weapon carrying. Students most likely to carry weapons to school engaged in multiple risk behaviors. ? A remarkable finding is that weapon carriers are more likely to be injured at school. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 The YRBS found certain forms of violence prevalent in Oregon schools as follows: ? Nearly one-third (31 percent) reported being harassed at school during the previous 30 days. ? Harassed students were more likely to carry weapons to school. ? Seven percent of students reported being physically threatened or injured during the previous 12 months. ? Thirteen percent of students reported being in a physical fight at school during the previous 12 months. Behavioral crimes, and crimes against persons increased dramatically from 1988 to 1996. While the rate of these crimes has leveled off recently, the overall rates of these behaviors far exceeds that of other industrialized countries. As stated earlier, most Oregon students are developing typically and will avoid engaging in the serious risk behaviors outlined above. Nonetheless, there is a substantial proportion of students (i.e. one in five carry weapons) or display other high-risk behaviors. We must remain diligent in prevention of these behaviors and reducing the risk of violence in our schools, homes, and communities. Discussion and Recommendations for Oregon Schools This section provides a set of legislative and policy recommendations from the School Safety Coalition. These recommendations are derived from the findings reported in the body of the report and reflect the wisdom and consensus of the coalition. The recommendations included in this report are predicated on the assumption that the legislature must allocate funding for suggested new programs or expansion of existing programs. The committee does not support the creation of legislative mandated programs without concomitant funding separate from the State School Fund appropriation. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 Our recommendations focus on the school as the central context for action. Clearly, legislation and policy that better supports healthy family and community development is needed to accompany efforts to make schools safer, healthier and violence free. Prevention of school violence will require a multifaceted approach including progress monitoring, whole-school approaches, early prevention programs, family supports, school security, and community and family collaboration and contribution. 1. Encourage Oregon schools to use comprehensive approaches to reduce bullying, harassment, and mean spirited teasing, including school wide social skills curriculum (interpersonal conflict resolution, anger management, empathy, drug, alcohol, and tobacco resistance, dating violence, etc.) Many, but not all, Oregon schools include interpersonal skills training such as conflict resolution, anger management etc. Research has clearly that these programs are effective and cost efficient in reducing this serious and widely prevalent problem. Integration of these types of programs into the existing curriculum can help students meet Oregon CIM/CAM benchmarks or standards by giving them skills in communication, problem-solving, working with others, and dealing with conflict. These programs are most effective when all students have an opportunity to practice these skills. 2. Establish an Oregon Center for School Safety A major challenge to our understanding of school violence is a relative lack of information regarding the extent of violence in our schools. To this end, we recommend establishing a center on school safety in Oregon to accomplish the following: ? Provide technical assistance, training, and information to schools regarding research- based strategies for safe schools conducive to learning, violence prevention and response. ? Track the status of school safety indicators in Oregon schools in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Education, Oregon Health Division, and the Oregon Progress Board. ? Seek federal funding for school safety initiatives. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 ? Report annually to the governor and legislature on the status of school safety in Oregon. Model school safety centers of this type have been established successfully in several states, including Kentucky and North Carolina. 3. Encourage school wide discipline and safety programs for all schools (with appropriate staff training and accountability to reductions in discipline) Research clearly indicates that a well-disciplined school that provides abundant positive interactions between adults and children is safer and helps children grow into well-adjusted , achieving adults. Oregon schools are struggling to implement these research validated programs but often lack resources for staff release for training and planning purposes, access to expert training, and systems for evaluating the effects of these interventions. While there are several model schools and programs in schools in Oregon, there is a need to empower all schools to move to this level of effectiveness. These programs should help schools achieve the following: ? Teach school rules and positive expectations for all children. ? Provide school-based mentors for at-risk students. ? Offer targeted behavioral programs (including alternative education programs) for at- behaviorally at-risk students. ? Expand before and after school programs. ? Provide alternatives to out of school suspension and expulsion. 4. Support early prevention of antisocial behavior Researchers at the University of Oregon?s Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior have published the results of an evaluation of an intervention program (First Step to Success) that they developed for kindergartners and first graders who showed the early signs of antisocial behavior. Consisting of multiple components (screening of all students, school, and home intervention), the program, currently supported by the Oregon Commission on Children and Families, can divert young children from a path to delinquency and adjustment problems through Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 adulthood. The legislature should continue to support this important and powerful intervention program to accomplish the following: ? Early screening and intervention for at-risk children, beginning at the point of school entry (e.g., First Step to Success). ? Training and support to school personnel who implement the program. ? Evaluation and long-term follow-up of First Step outcomes for children, families, and school personnel. 5. Examine policies and procedures regarding school security practices in Oregon schools While early prevention holds great appeal and promise, Oregon schools need to ensure that buildings are secure and well prepared for crisis events. To this end, we encourage schools to consider the following activities: ? Annual evaluations of each school's safety status (e.g., regularly scheduled school safety audits and public reporting of results). ? Physical facility and grounds (CPTED assessment). ? Violent incident and illegal behavior tracking and reporting. ? Administrative and management practices regarding safety and discipline. ? School safety drills (fire, intruder, etc.). ? Procedures for responding to violent threats. ? Close school campuses or find alternatives in open campus settings that assure both safety and the level of openness required to function as a center of excellence. ? Allow open sharing of student behavioral information between schools, youth and family services (e.g., OYA, SCF). ? Establish anonymous "hotline" reporting systems for potential violence. ? Modify existing statutes disallowing concealed weapons on school campuses. 6. Encourage risk-reducing architectural school design and assessment of existing buildings. Deteriorating school facilities and schools designed without adequate attention to school security and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) issues can impede learning and contribute to the risk of violent behavior. To address these concerns, we recommend that state and local jurisdictions work toward: ? Application of CPTED assessments for all Oregon schools. ? Development of CPTED expertise in schools and law enforcement agencies. ? A district-by district survey of the extent building security needs, practices, and risk. ? Active community involvement in promoting safety and access in architectural design decisions. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 7. Establish standards for school resource officers (SRO'S) in schools Schools should adopt policies or protocols which include law enforcement in a cooperative, collaborative, and holistic approach in issues related to school safety where there has been a report of criminal conduct, actual criminal conduct, or an attempt at criminal conduct. Incidents of criminal conduct occurring on school property or having a relationship to school property or activities should be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. School administrators and staff should make efforts to cooperate and assist law enforcement in criminal investigations as conditions allow. Law enforcement personnel should engage in a reciprocal relationship with schools in matters related to school safety and criminal investigations as the conditions allow. 8. Encourage community and family collaboration Schools have been the focus of attention in recent years regarding school safety, but clearly are only part of the problem (and solution). To support community and family collaboration, we recommend the following: ? Include violence prevention courses and training (conflict resolution, social skills, and at-risk student intervention) in Oregon teacher training programs (including ongoing professional development for inservice teachers). ? Establish programs in Oregon schools that involve parents, families, community groups, community dispute resolution centers, and other interested organizations to assist schools with teaching, modeling, and reinforcing conflict resolution education and skills training. ? Provide parents with conflict resolution education and information regarding school programs. ? Assist schools to work in partnership with families and communities to build a school climate that honors and respects differences in cultures, groups and individuals. ? Support adequate mental health services for children and families. Conclusion Emerging public concerns regarding the safety of students in the school setting coupled with recent school shootings and media coverage of youth violence in general are generating enormous pressures on educators and communities to take ownership of the problems presented Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 by antisocial, delinquent and violent youth. The production of four public documents by the U.S. Justice and Education departments reflect the government's response to this growing public concern (See the Early Warning/Timely Response Guide, the First and Second Annual Report on School Safety, and Safeguarding Our Children, A Guide to Implementing the Early Warning Guide). Over the next several years, an enormous amount of federal, state, and local resources will be invested in school safety and violence prevention. It is extremely important that these precious resources be used to promote the adoption of best professional practices and that proven, research based screening systems and early interventions be implemented in addressing them. These developments also create significant opportunities for school professionals (related services personnel, general educators, special educators) to collaborate more effectively and to forge new working relationships with families and community agencies. If we can implement with integrity that which we currently know regarding these problems, a major positive impact can be achieved in making schools safer and violence free. The stakes are high for our society and school systems. Yet the potential gains are well worth the investment and effort. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 References Bi gl an, A. ( 1995). T ranslati ng what we know about the cont ext of ant isocial behavi or into a lower preval ence of such behavi or. Jour nal of Appl ied Behavior Analysis, 28, 479-492. Br aaten, S . (1997) . Creati ng safe schools: A pr incipal's per specti ve. I n A.P . Goldst ein & J. C. Conoley (E ds.) School violence interventi on: A pr actical handbook. New York: Gui lford. Colvin, G., Kameenui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with behavior problems in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381. Crowe, T. (1991). Habitual offenders: Guidelines for citizen action and public responses. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U. S. Department of Justice. Hawkins, JD, Catalano, R.F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., & Hill, K.G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Gottfredson, D. C. (1997). School-based crime prevention. In L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. Mackenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. College Park, MD: Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice. Green, M. (1999). The appropriate and effective use of security technologies in U.S. schools: A guide for schools and law enforcement agencies. Sandia National Laboratories. National Institute of Justice Research Report. U.S. Department of Justice. Hastert, J.D., & Gephardt, R. (1999). Bipartisan working group on youth violence: Final report to 106th Congress. http://www.house.gov/frost/youthviol.htm. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 Hawkins, D., & Catalano, R. (1992). Communities that care. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Hopkins, D. (1999). Weapons and Oregon teens: What is the risk? Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Human Services. Kingery, P. (1999). Suspensions and expulsions: New Directions. Effective violence prevention programs. The Hamilton-Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence. Washington, DC, George Washington University. Kissler, G., & Fore, N. (1999). To the well being of Oregonians: Public policy for a changing economic and social context. Salem, OR: Oregon Progress Board. Lipsey, M. W. (1991). The effect of treatment on juvenile delinquents: Results from meta-analysis. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Mayer, G. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478. Morrison, G.M., Furlong, M.J., & Morrison, R.L. (1994). From school violence to school safety: Reframing the issue for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 23, 236-256. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys (Vol. 4): A social interactional approach. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Schneider, T., Walker, H. M., & Sprague, J. R. (2000). Safe school design: A handbook for educational leaders. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, College of Education, University of Oregon. Stephens, R. D. (1995). Safe schools: A handbook for violence prevention. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service. Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 Sprague, J., Colvin, G., & Irvin, L. (1995). The Oregon School Safety Survey. Eugene: University of Oregon. Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Walker, H. (1998). Antisocial behavior in the schools. In S. Watson & F. Gresham (Eds.), Child behavior therapy: Ecological considerations in assessment, treatment, and evaluation (pp. 451-474). Sprague, J., & Walker, H. (2000). Early identification and intervention for youth with antisocial and violent behavior. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 367-379. Sprague, J., Walker, H., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D. R., & Shannon, T. (in press). Translating research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and student intervention on key indicators of school safety and discipline. Education and Treatment of Children. Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (1994). ?Including students with severe behavior problems in general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and solutions.? Oregon Conference Monograph, 6, 102-120. Sugai, G., Sprague, JR, Horner, R.H., & Walker, H.M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2), 94-101. Sugai, G., Todd. A., Palmer, T., & Horner, R.H. (1999). Assessing and planning behavioral supports in school. University of Oregon, Department of Education. Eugene, Oregon. Tobin, T., & Sprague, J. (2000). Alternative education strategies: Reducing violence in school and the community. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 177-186. Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Martin, E. (2000). Final report for Project CREDENTIALS: Current research on educational endeavors to increase at-risk learners? success. Report submitted Attorney General?s School/Community Safety Report Page 38 to the Office of Professional Technical Education, Oregon Department of Education. University of Oregon, College of Education, Behavioral Research and Teaching, Eugene. Tolan, P., & Guerr a, N. (1994). What works in reduci ng adolescent vi olence: An empir ical revi ew of the fiel d. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Pr event ion of Viol ence, University of Colorado. U. S. Department of Justice and U. S. Department of Education (1999). Annual Report on School Safety. Washington, DC: Author. Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Walker, H. M., & Eaton-Walker, J. (March, 2000). Key questions about school safety: Critical issues and recommended solutions. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 46-55. Walker, H. M., Forness, S. R., Kauffman, J. M., Epstein, M. H., Gresham, F. M., Nelson, C. M., & Strain, P. S. (1998). Macro-social validation: Referencing outcomes in behavioral disorders to societal issues and problems. Behavioral Disorders, 24(1), 7-18. Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194-209. Attorney General's School/Community Saftey Coalition report Hardy Myers, Attorney General State of Oregon endorsment The number one recommendation of the March 2001 Oregon Attorney General&Mac226;s School / Community Safety Report is: to encourage Oregon schools to use comprehensive approaches to reduce bullying, harassment, and mean spirited teasing as bullying and harassment in schools emerged as a primary concern of school administrators grades K-12. Attorney General Hardy Myers and the Department of Justice have endorsed the Hands & Words Project as a direct means to address these behaviors. Read the Attorney General's School/Community Saftey Coalition report: "How Safe Are Oregon Schools" (PDF 304k) In part, as a result, of the Attorney General's School / Community Saftey Coalition report "How Safe Are Oregon Schools," status and recommendations from March 2001, the following bills were passed by the legislature and signed into law by Govener Kitzhaber at an official ceremony on June 26, 2001. **HB 3403, Anti-bullying bill, sponsored by Rep. Devlin: READ **HB 3429, Creating The Center for School Saftey, Sponsored by Rep. Carlson: READ **HB 3647, The School Saftey Hotline Bill, sponsored by Rep. Morrisette: READ Back to Endorsements Page close window http://www.handsproject.org/news/Myers_report.html3/6/2005 7:15:11 AM journal of school violence < read the journal online > and links submissions news editors subscription http://genesislight.com/JSV.html3/6/2005 7:15:51 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 6 Summer 2002 A Practical Tool for Monitoring Development in Young Children Jane Squires Long before children ever get to the classroom they go through many stages of development that will play a significant role in determining their success in school. Small problems undetected in this vital period are called developmental delays. Educators believe that identifying and addressing these problems as early as possible is a key to a child's long-term success in school. University of Oregon researchers have developed a tool to detect such problems. The Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) monitors a child's progress every two to four months during the extraordinary period of growth between age four months and five years. "The ASQ is really a series of questionnaires, each specifically crafted for a different stage of development," says co-developer Jane Squires, an associate professor in the UO College of Education. "It gathers important information related to the child's development by asking the parents simple questions about their child's observable behaviors. Parents have the most direct and extensive knowledge of how a child is progressing." Questions focus on major areas of child development: physical skills, social and personal skills, communication, and problem solving. Each questionnaire takes only minutes to complete. "From societal and educational perspectives, it's very helpful to have an economical tool to screen large numbers of children and identify the small number who are showing early signs of problems," says Squires. "If a problem is detected, the child and family can then be referred for further evaluation and services as necessary, for example with a counselor, psychologist, physical therapist, or pediatrician." http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art6.html (1 of 2)3/6/2005 7:16:25 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 6 The questionnaire is nearly as reliable as, and less expensive than, professionally administered assessments. Parents, not professional testers, fill out the questionnaire and the results are interpreted by program staff members such as home visitors and public health nurses. These staff members also meet with parents and give them suggestions for games or other kinds of interactions designed to help the child move to the next stage. Results from the Ages and Stages Questionnaire have a high rate of agreement (about 85 percent) with professionally administered assessments. "The cost of the professional assessments is prohibitively high. As a result, they cannot be given regularly the way the ASQ is. Regular monitoring is one key to the questionnaire's usefulness," says Squires. Education and public health professionals have embraced the ASQ. In Oregon, Healthy Start (a home visiting program for first-time parents) uses it in 18 counties, with plans to use it even more widely. ASQ is also a tool for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. These compensatory education programs for low-income families help children from before birth to school age. About 6,500 children and families participate in Head Start programs in Oregon. Three states have statewide programs using the ASQ with additional large-scale projects in approximately 45 states. These projects are conducted by pediatricians, public health nurses, home visitors, child protective service workers, day-care centers, and early intervention programs. The system is also widely used outside the United States. Research on the ASQ for French Canadian populations is underway in Quebec. Several Canadian provinces use large-scale ASQ early identification systems as well as systems for monitoring the development of infants and preschoolers from indigenous populations. Supported in part by the World Health Organization, a nationwide project is under way in Nicaragua using the questionnaire to measure the effects of a government program providing food to infants and toddlers. There are also research projects in Britain, France, Norway, Finland, and Australia and with the Maori indigenous population of New Zealand. "It is pretty incredible?an amazing feeling to see this project find applications all around the world," Squires says. "It is exciting to have had a hand in developing this kind of practical tool." Back to INQUIRY home page ?2002 University of Oregon http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art6.html (2 of 2)3/6/2005 7:16:25 AM Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)?: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition (Bricker & Squires) Register for a special May 2005 ASQ Seminar! Download flyer Related Titles: Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional (ASQ:SE)? Ages & Stages Learning Activities Download Information on ASQ?: Sample Questionnaire The entire 48-month questionnaire, including the scoring sheet. (7 pages / 90K) Introduction An overview of the entire ASQ? system. (5 pages / 100K) Components Descriptions of the tools included in the system and a timeline for each phase of the screening process. (4 pages / 22K) Implementation Specifics on translating Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)? A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition By Diane Bricker, Ph.D., & Jane Squires, Ph.D., with assistance from Linda Mounts, M.A., LaWanda Potter, M.S., Robert Nickel, M. D., Elizabeth Twombly, M.S., and Jane Farrell, M.S. "We've used [this system] for the past ten years. The ASQ? gives excellent screening information early in a child's life.... The ASQ? system invites parents to be their child's best teacher." ?Jane Kirkpatrick, L.C.S.W. "The North Dakota Early Childhood Tracking System has used ASQ?... as a low-cost screening instrument to track at-risk children across the state... the ASQ? has been a reliable indicator of developmental progress." ?Linda M. Olson, Ed.D. The Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)? system is a low- cost, reliable way to screen infants and young children for developmental delays during the crucial first 5 years of life. http://www.pbrookes.com/store/books/bricker-asq/ (1 of 7)3/6/2005 7:16:56 AM Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)?: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition (Bricker & Squires) questionnaire responses into reliable assessment data. (6 pages / 80K) Technical Report The results of reliability analyses and validity studies on ASQ?. (6 pages / 22K) Please note: Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to access these files. If Reader is not already installed on your computer, download it for free now. Foreign Languages: ASQ? Questionnaires are already available in Spanish, French, and Korean. Translations are in development in other languages, including Mandarin and Arabic. If you would like more information on these new questionnaires or would like to ask about ASQ availability in other languages, please e- mail our customer service department. FREE: Activities from the User's Guide in Spanish Parents complete the simple, illustrated 30-item questionnaires at designated intervals, assessing children in their natural environments to ensure valid results. Each questionnaire can be completed in just 10-15 minutes and covers five key developmental areas: communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem solving, and personal-social. Professionals convert parents' responses of yes, sometimes, and not yet ? in just 2-3 minutes ? to color-coded scoring sheets, enabling them to quickly determine a child's progress in each developmental area. The ASQ? User's Guide then offers clear guidelines for determining whether children are at high or low risk in the various domains. ASQ? keeps costs down by providing photocopiable forms (see photocopying release) that can be mailed to parents. Or, the questionnaires can be completed by parents during home visits ? there's a helpful video that demonstrates the process. And questionnaires are also available in Spanish, French, and Korean for professionals who work with families that speak those languages. It's a flexible, culturally sensitive, and economical way to track the developmental progress of young children. Eight new questionnaires, added to this edition as a result of user feedback, extend the age-range of the system and help to create a more authentic means of measuring the rapidly developing skills of young children. Questions about parent involvement, accuracy of results, or ease of administration? Visit this Fast Facts sheet for answers. The complete ASQ? system includes: a71 19 color-coded, photocopiable questionnaires for use at 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, and 60 months of age a71 19 photocopiable, age-appropriate scoring sheets ? one for http://www.pbrookes.com/store/books/bricker-asq/ (2 of 7)3/6/2005 7:16:56 AM Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)?: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition (Bricker & Squires) The 10 pages of photocopiable activities that appear in The ASQ? User's Guide are now available in Spanish! Download them for free. each questionnaire a71 1 convenient storage box a71 The ASQ? User's Guide, which has been revised and expanded to help professionals accurately administer the questionnaires and confidently interpret their results. Includes sample parent-child activities for each age range. The ASQ? CD-ROM Now you can get all 19 questionnaires and scoring sheets PLUS all 200 intervention activities from the ASQ? User's Guide in one convenient CD-ROM! All materials are in PDF format for easy printing and photocopying at no additional cost. In response to popular demand, the Spanish CD-ROM includes the intervention activities in Spanish. The CD-ROM allows customers to post the questionnaires and activity sheets on password-protected web sites for families to access. Coming Soon!! The ASQ Manager This computer database program helps centers and agencies use ASQ more efficiently. It creates an individual file for each child that includes contact information, demographic information, ASQ screening results, and notes. After users enter answers to ASQ questions into the child?s record, the program tabulates scores, identifies areas in which the child needs further assessment, formats questionnaire information into a printable document for sharing with parents, and generates a letter to the parents explaining the results. The program can also generate reports of all children in the center, helping users identify which children need to be screened on a month by month basis, which children need follow-up assessment, and more. The ASQ Manager comes with a detailed user?s guide and a brief, simply worded guidebook on developmental screening. Professional development on this title is available through Brookes On Location! Ordering Information The Complete ASQ? System http://www.pbrookes.com/store/books/bricker-asq/ (3 of 7)3/6/2005 7:16:56 AM Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)?: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition (Bricker & Squires) Stock# 370X / $190.00 with Questionnaires in English Stock# 3718 / $190.00 with Questionnaires in Spanish Stock# 4838 / $190.00 with Questionnaires in French Stock# 5273 / $140.00 with Questionnaires in Korean (for months 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 48 only) Note: If you reside outside of the U.S. and Canada, please contact the Seoul Community Rehabilitation Center, #317-24, Kodok-dong, Kangdong-gu, Seoul 134-080, Korea to purchase the ASQ? system. The ASQ? CD-ROM In English Stock# 692X / $165.00 In Spanish Stock# 6946 / $165.00 http://www.pbrookes.com/store/books/bricker-asq/ (4 of 7)3/6/2005 7:16:56 AM Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)?: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition (Bricker & Squires) CD-ROM and User's Guide (with English CD-ROM) Stock# 6938 / $190.00 CD-ROM and User's Guide (with Spanish CD- ROM) Stock# 6954 / $190.00 The ASQ? Questionnaires (only) Stock# 3688 / $165.00 with Questionnaires in English Stock# 3696 / $165.00 with Questionnaires in Spanish Stock# 482X / $165.00 with Questionnaires in French Stock# 8015 / $115.00 with Questionnaires in Korean (for months 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 48 only) Note: If you reside outside of the U.S. and Canada, please contact the Seoul Community Rehabilitation Center, #317-24, Kodok-dong, Kangdong-gu, Seoul 134-080, Korea to purchase these questionnaires. http://www.pbrookes.com/store/books/bricker-asq/ (5 of 7)3/6/2005 7:16:56 AM Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)?: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition (Bricker & Squires) The ASQ? User's Guide (only) Stock# 367X / $45.00 Ages & Stages Learning Activities See Description Book Stock# 7705 / $24.95 CD-ROM Stock# 7764 / $24.95 Ages & Stages Questionnaires on a Home Visit (video) Stock# 2185 / $44.00 Ages & Stages Questionnaires Scoring and Referral (video) Stock# 7616 / $49.95 See Description Coming Soon! Ages & Stages Questionnaires Manager Stock# 8019 / $199.00 / February 2005 See Description We do not offer examination copies of the complete ASQ? http://www.pbrookes.com/store/books/bricker-asq/ (6 of 7)3/6/2005 7:16:56 AM Ages & Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)?: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition (Bricker & Squires) system. We invite you to take advantage of our 30-day money back guarantee. DETAILS ? Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc. | brookes store | contact us | site map | home http://www.pbrookes.com/store/books/bricker-asq/ (7 of 7)3/6/2005 7:16:56 AM Ages & Stages Questionnaires: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System Second Edition By Diane Bricker and Jane Squires with assistance from Linda Mounts, LaWanda Potter, Robert Nickel, Elizabeth Twombly, and Jane Farrell Copyright ? 1999 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 48 Month 4 Year Questionnaire H12135 On the following pages are questions about activities children do. Your child may have already done some of the activities described here, and there may be some your child has not begun doing yet. For each item, please check the box that tells whether your child is doing the activity regularly, sometimes, or not yet. Important Points to Remember: a75a19 Be sure to try each activity with your child before checking a box. a75a19 Try to make completing this questionnaire a game that is fun for you and your child. a75a19 Make sure your child is rested, fed, and ready to play. a75a19 Please return this questionnaire by . a75a19 If you have any questions or concerns about your child or about this questionnaire, please call: . a75a19 Look forward to filling out another questionnaire in months. 1 2 Ages & Stages Questionnaires: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System Second Edition By Diane Bricker and Jane Squires with assistance from Linda Mounts, LaWanda Potter, Robert Nickel, Elizabeth Twombly, and Jane Farrell Copyright ? 1999 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 48 Month 4 Year Questionnaire H12135 Please provide the following information. Child?s name: Child?s date of birth: Today?s date: Person filling out this questionnaire: What is your relationship to the child? Your telephone: Your mailing address: City: State: ZIP code: List people assisting in questionnaire completion: Administering program or provider: YES SOMETIMES NOT YET COMMUNICATION Be sure to try each activity with your child. 1. Does your child name at least three items from a common category? For example, if you say to your child, ?Tell me some things that you can eat,? does your child answer with something like, ?Cookies, eggs, and cereal?? Or if you say, ?Tell me the names of some animals,? does your child answer with something like, ?Cow, dog, and elephant?? a75a75a75 2. Does your child answer the following questions: ?What do you do when you are hungry?? (Acceptable answers include: ?Get food,? ?Eat,? ?Ask for something to eat,? and ?Have a snack.?) Please write your child?s response: ?What do you do when you are tired?? (Acceptable answers include: ?Take a nap,? ?Rest,? ?Go to sleep,? ?Go to bed,? ?Lie down,? and ?Sit down.?) Please write your child?s response: Mark ?sometimes? if your child answers only one question. a75a75a75 3. Does your child tell you at least two things about common objects? For example, if you say to your child, ?Tell me about your ball,? does he say something like, ?It?s round. I throw it. It?s big?? a75a75a75 4. Does your child use endings of words, such as ?s,? ?ed,? and ?ing?? For example, does your child say things like, ?I see two cats,? ?I am playing,? or ?I kicked the ball?? a75a75a75 5. Without giving help by pointing or repeating, does your child follow three directions that are unrelated to one another? For example, you may ask your child to ?Clap your hands, walk to the door, and sit down.? a75a75a75 6. Does your child use all of the words in a sentence (for example, ?a,? ?the,? ?am,? ?is,? and ?are?) to make complete sentences, such as ?I am going to the park,? or ?Is there a toy to play with?? or ?Are you coming, too?? a75a75a75 COMMUNICATION TOTAL GROSS MOTOR Be sure to try each activity with your child. 1. Does your child catch a large ball with both hands? You should stand about 5 feet away and give your child two or three tries. a75a75a75 2. Does your child climb the rungs of a ladder of a playground slide and slide down without help? a75a75a75 3. While standing, does your child throw a ball overhand in the direction of a person standing at least 6 feet away? To throw overhand, your child must raise her arm to shoulder height and throw the ball forward. (Dropping the ball, letting the ball go, or throwing the ball underhand should be scored as ?not yet.?) a75a75a75 3Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Second Edition, Bricker et al. 48 months/4 years YES SOMETIMES NOT YET GROSS MOTOR (continued) 4. Does your child hop up and down on either the right or left foot at least one time without losing his balance or falling? a75a75a75 5. Does your child jump forward a distance of 20 inches from a standing position, starting with her feet together? a75a75a75 6. Without holding onto anything, does your child stand on one foot for at least 5 seconds without losing his balance and putting his foot down? You may give your child two or three tries before you mark the question. a75a75a75 GROSS MOTOR TOTAL FINE MOTOR Be sure to try each activity with your child. 1. Does your child put together a six-piece interlocking puzzle? (If one is not available, take a full-page picture from a magazine or catalog and cut it into six pieces. Does your child put it back together correctly?) a75a75a75 2. Using child-safe scissors, does your child cut a paper in half on a more or less straight line, making the blades go up and down? (Carefully watch your child?s use of scissors for safety reasons.) a75a75a75 3. Using the shapes below to look at, does your child copy at least three shapes onto a large piece of paper using a pencil or crayon, without tracing? Your child?s drawings should look similar to the design of the shapes below, but they may be different in size. a75a75a75 4. Does your child unbutton one or more buttons? Your child may use his own clothing or a doll?s clothing. a75a75a75 5. Does your child draw pictures of people that have at least three of the following features: head, eyes, nose, mouth, neck, hair, trunk, arms, hands, legs, or feet? a75a75a75 6. Does your child color mostly within the lines in a coloring book? Your child should not go more than 1/4 inch outside the lines on most of the picture. a75a75a75 FINE MOTOR TOTAL 4Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Second Edition, Bricker et al. 48 months/4 years YES SOMETIMES NOT YET PROBLEM SOLVING Be sure to try each activity with your child. 1. When you say, ?Say five eight three,? does your child repeat just these three numbers in the correct order? Do not repeat these numbers. If necessary, try another series of numbers and say, ?Say six nine two.? Your child must repeat just one series of three numbers to answer ?yes? to this question. a75a75a75 2. When asked, ?Which circle is the smallest?? does your child point to the smallest circle? Ask this question without providing help by pointing, gesturing, or looking at the smallest circle. a75a75a75 3. Without giving help by pointing, does your child follow three different directions using the words ?under,? ?between,? and ?middle?? For example, ask your child to put a book ?under the couch.? Then ask her to put the ball ?between the chairs? and the shoe ?in the middle of the table.? a75a75a75 4. When shown an object and asked, ?What color is this?? does your child name five different colors like red, blue, yellow, orange, black, white, or pink? Answer ?yes? only if your child answers the question correctly using five colors. a75a75a75 5. Does your child dress up and ?play-act,? pretending to be someone or something else? For example, your child may dress up in different clothes and pretend to be a mommy, daddy, brother or sister, or an imaginary animal or figure. a75a75a75 6. If you place five objects in front of your child, can he count them saying, ?One, two, three, four, five,? in order? Ask this question without providing help by pointing, gesturing, or naming. a75a75a75 PROBLEM SOLVING TOTAL PERSONAL-SOCIAL Be sure to try each activity with your child. 1. Does your child serve herself, taking food from one container to another using utensils? For example, can your child use a large spoon to scoop applesauce from a jar into a bowl? a75a75a75 2. Does your child tell you at least four of the following: a. First name d. Last name b. Age e. Boy or girl c. City she lives in f. Telephone number Please circle the items your child knows. a75a75a75 3. Does your child wash his hands and face using soap and dry off with a towel without help? a75a75a75 4. Does your child tell you the names of two or more playmates, not including brothers and sisters? Ask this question without providing help by suggesting names of playmates or friends. a75a75a75 5Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Second Edition, Bricker et al. 48 months/4 years 6 YES SOMETIMES NOT YET PERSONAL-SOCIAL (continued) 5. Does your child brush her teeth by putting toothpaste on the toothbrush and brushing all her teeth without help? You may still need to check and rebrush your child?s teeth. a75a75a75 6. Does your child dress or undress himself without help (except for snaps, buttons, and zippers)? a75a75a75 PERSONAL-SOCIAL TOTAL OVERALL Parents and providers may use the space below or the back of this sheet for additional comments. 1. Do you think your child hears well? YES a75 NO a75 If no, explain: 2. Do you think your child talks like other children her age? YES a75 NO a75 If no, explain: 3. Can you understand most of what your child says? YES a75 NO a75 If no, explain: 4. Do you think your child walks, runs, and climbs like other children his age? YES a75 NO a75 If no, explain: 5. Does either parent have a family history of childhood deafness or hearing impairment? YES a75 NO a75 If yes, explain: 6. Do you have any concerns about your child?s vision? YES a75 NO a75 If yes, explain: 7. Has your child had any medical problems in the last several months? YES a75 NO a75 If yes, explain: 8. Does anything about your child worry you? YES a75 NO a75 If yes, explain: Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Second Edition, Bricker et al. ? 1999 Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 48 months/4 years SCORING THE QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Be sure each item has been answered. If an item cannot be answered, refer to the ratio scoring procedure in The ASQ User?s Guide. 2. Score each item on the questionnaire by writing the appropriate number on the line by each item answer. YES = 10 SOMETIMES = 5 NOT YET = 0 3. Add up the item scores for each area, and record these totals in the space provided for area totals. 4. Indicate the child?s total score for each area by filling in the appropriate circle on the chart below. For example, if the total score for the Communication area was 50, fill in the circle below 50 in the first row. Examine the blackened circles for each area in the chart above. 5. If the child?s total score falls within the area, the child appears to be doing well in this area at this time. 6. If the child?s total score falls within the area, talk with a professional. The child may need further evaluation. OPTIONAL: The specific answers to each item on the questionnaire can be recorded below on the summary chart. Administering program or provider: 7Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Second Edition, Bricker et al. 48 months/4 years 48 Month/4 Year ASQ Information Summary Child?s name: Person filling out the ASQ: Mailing address: Telephone: Today?s date: Date of birth: Relationship to child: City: State: ZIP: Assisting in ASQ completion: OVERALL: Please transfer the answers in the Overall section of the questionnaire by circling ?yes? or ?no? and reporting any comments. 1. Hears well? YES NO Comments: 2. Talks like other children? YES NO Comments: 3. Understand child? YES NO Comments: 4. Walks, runs, and climbs like others? YES NO Comments: 5. Family history of hearing impairment? YES NO Comments: 6. Vision okay? YES NO Comments: 7. Recent medical problems? YES NO Comments: 8. Other concerns? YES NO Comments: 39.1 32.9 30.0 35.0 23.4 Score Cutoff Communication Gross motor Fine motor Problem solving Personal-social 48 months/4 years Communication H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 1 2 3 4 5 6 YSN H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 1 2 3 4 5 6 YSN H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 1 2 3 4 5 6 YSN H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 1 2 3 4 5 6 YSN H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 H18540H18540H18540 1 2 3 4 5 6 YSN Gross motor Problem solving Personal-social Total 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Communication Gross motor Fine motor Problem solving Personal-social Total 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 7 Summer 2002 Creating a Better Environment for Learning George Sugai and Rob Horner The problem is simple to describe. Schools where discipline and behavior problems are rampant are not good places for students to learn, for teachers to teach and for parents to send their kids. Solving this problem, however, is not an easy task. Improvements in discipline do not come about by dealing with one student or one class at a time or by "getting tougher," but by making widespread and fundamental changes in how schools function as systems, say Professors George Sugai and Rob Horner of the University of Oregon College of Education. To bring about these changes, they advocate an approach called schoolwide Positive Behavior Support, or PBS. Based on research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, school-wide PBS is designed to define, teach, and encourage appropriate student behavior. More important, it creates a school environment in which expected behavior, not reactive discipline, is the focus of attention. PBS is primarily used in kindergarten through the eighth grade. "This approach is based on the fact that typically 80 percent of students have the social skills to do quite well if placed in a reasonable environment," Horner explains. "If an effective school environment can be established, teachers are freed to devote less time to discipline and more time to teaching." In the first days of the school year, teachers in schools that use PBS teach their students schoolwide and classroom expectations with fast-paced, interactive instruction. Expectations are kept short, memorable, and clear. Each school develops its own words and symbols to bring the tenets underlying Positive Behavioral Support alive within its own social culture. One school, for example, uses these expectations: "Be safe, be respectful, and be responsible." The expectations are posted throughout the school and are often integrated into teacher interactions with students. Teachers work to ensure that students understand these expectations as they might apply http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art7.html (1 of 3)3/6/2005 7:24:13 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 7 during everyday interactions in classrooms, hallways, the cafeteria, playgrounds, and on the school bus. "By treating the whole school as a single system, we create a culture with widespread student support for socially appropriate behaviors," Sugai says. "The schoolwide effort doesn't address the needs of every student, but in this kind of positive environment, teachers have more resources and opportunities to spend with the 1 to 7 percent of students who display the most severe problem behaviors." If an effective school environment can be established, teachers are freed to devote less time to discipline and more time to teaching. What kind of results does Positive Behavioral Support yield? "It's extremely successful," Horner says. In one school that started using PBS in 1994, the number of office discipline referrals fell dramatically in just one year from 2,628 to 1,525?a 42 percent reduction. Ongoing commitment to the approach has lowered the number of referrals even further for an overall decrease of 67 percent. "Education is a key element in creating a livable society," says Sugai. "And similarly, creating a livable and supportive society?in this case within the school?is a key element for a good education for all students." Schoolwide PBS is being initiated or implemented in more than 700 schools in the United States. These schools are seeing a 20-60 percent decrease in office discipline referrals. This represents a significant savings of time for administrators and teachers. Students also benefit. With fewer referrals and less of their school time spent dealing with discipline issues, more time is available for teaching and learning. "We have documented that schools can implement these practices. We've made the information available, and we work with schools across the country to help them adopt effective schoolwide discipline," Horner says. "Creating practical and useful information for society is one of the functions of a research university." What's next for Horner and Sugai? They are conducting research in 90 schools to measure the effect of improved behavioral environments on student academic performance. If the results come in as they expect, an even stronger argument can be made for schools to adopt the schoolwide PBS model. More information about schoolwide PBS is available online at www.pbis.org Back to INQUIRY home page http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art7.html (2 of 3)3/6/2005 7:24:13 AM INQUIRY Summer 2002 - Article 7 ?2002 University of Oregon http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/s02/art7.html (3 of 3)3/6/2005 7:24:13 AM PBIS Website Home Sitemap Search Online Library Site Feedback PBIS Network Print this page Espa?ol PBIS Home PBS Topics School-Wide PBS Primary Secondary Tertiary District-Wide PBS State-Wide PBS High school PBS Families & PBS PBS & the Law Welcome to the National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) About the Center The Center has been established by the Office of Special Education Programs, US Department of Education to give schools capacity-building information and technical assistance for identifying, adapting, and sustaining effective school-wide disciplinary practices. a71 PBIS Goals a71 Partners a72 Important message about Dr. George Sugai and his move to the UCONN What's New Welcome to the new www.pbis.org website. For those of you who used our previous site and are looking for a particular article, you will most likely find it in the Online Library section. Please look around the new site using the navigation bars that run horizontally and vertically on the front page. All yellow arrows will return you to the top of the page and the home button will return you to the home page. If you are looking for something in particular and unable to find it, please email Laura Riffel. Want to know how to get PBIS started in your school? Go to the Online Library link above, click on tools, and download the BluePrint Article, or click this section for a direct link. http://www.pbis.org/main.htm (1 of 4)3/6/2005 7:25:00 AM PBIS Website Click here for PBIS Flyer Click here to help promote the APBS conference http://www.pbis.org/main.htm (2 of 4)3/6/2005 7:25:00 AM PBIS Website Click for more information about Who should attend the forum, What the forum is about, When the forum will occur, Where the forum is being held, and Why the forum is held each year. More information will be posted soon with links to the hotel and other information. For more information write to Lucille Eber ?Nuevo! El chasquido aqu? para una Versi?n espa?ola del estudiante dirigi? la entrevista de PBS. Este es el nivel primario. Click here for the Spanish version of the Student directed PBS interview. Haga clic aqu? para un art?culo escrito en el espa?ol acerca de la Escuela Apoyo Positivo Ancho de Conducta Click here for the Spanish version of an article on SW PBS. PBIS Information http://www.pbis.org/main.htm (3 of 4)3/6/2005 7:25:00 AM PBIS Website For more information about this website check out the site map To contact a partner or ask a question through this website contact Laura Riffel Tell your friends about PBIS.org! Just enter their e-mail addresses and send! Subscribe to the PBIS Newsletter. Unsubscribe from the PBIS Newsletter. Take a few minutes to tell us what you think about this website OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports This Site is Bobby AAA Approved Best viewed for screen size 1024 x 768 http://www.pbis.org/main.htm (4 of 4)3/6/2005 7:25:00 AM