mcdowell institute · quarterly news fi [email protected] fi apr. 2020 mcdoell institute —...

Quarterly News 0 [email protected] 0 Apr. 2020

MCDOWELL INSTITUTE—Fostering Wellness Through Education


College of EducationMcDowell Institute

TOUCHING HEARTS… CHANGING MINDS… BUILDING SYSTEMS:MCDOWELL INSTITUTE IMPACT 2019–20

The partnerships and subsequent reach of the McDowell Institute has continued to grow over the past year and is positively impacting the social, emotional, and behavioral well-being of students. This impact has occurred as a result of numerous, aligned initiatives in local schools and on-campus as well as endeavors with state-level partners in PK-12 and higher education settings across the commonwealth. One of the primary methods of outreach is training in empirically supported programs and practices that help to build mental health literacy to address non-academic barriers to learning. Beyond training, the McDowell Institute also continues to provide technical assistance and guidance to schools and community partners that are increasingly invested in school-based behavioral health.

Through partnerships with kindred organizations this past year, an impressive degree of training was provided, resulting in 3,017 people receiving the direct benefit of training conducted through the McDowell Institute in the past twelve months. Further, 61,571 students in PK-12 and college and university settings experienced associated benefits from these same trainings (e.g., school-age students in local school districts benefit from their teachers in their respective schools having completed training in Youth Mental Health First Aid, Question-Persuade-Refer, and Trauma-informed Preventive Classroom Management).

NAVY HALL, ROOM 214 | 570-389-5222



TOPIC NUMBER NUMBERS OF OF EVENTS STUDENT/FACULTY

Preventive Classroom Management 4 291

Youth Mental Health First Aid (YMHFA) 11 348

Question-Persuade-Refer (QPR) 12 383

Kognito (Virtual) Modules Course embedded 415 & Other

McDowell (Virtual) Modules Course embedded 930

Mental Health Awareness Panels 2 78

Examples of Bloomsburg University-based Trainings 2019-20

Off-Campus PK–12 Trainings 2019–20

Examples of Technical Assistance in Local Schools 2019–20

As important as professional development through formal training is to building trauma-informed practice, it is essential to guide educators and community leaders on ways in which to situate such professional development within a sustainable approach across educational settings. Situating trauma-informed programs and practices requires thoughtful planning and development of action plans that strategically positions such professional development within Multi-tiered Systems of Support to enhance academic, social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes. To this end, the McDowell Institute provided approximately 158 hours of technical assistance to educational and community partners these past 12 months. A broad array of topics that support social-emotional-behavioral wellness served as the focal point of the technical assistance provided. Examples of the topics included analysis and strategic use of emergent data, including the Pennsylvania Youth Survey (PAYS), and reflected a continuum of universal preventative strategies through individual-intensive supports and explicitly addressed suicide prevention. Provided is a snapshot of a few of the highest priority areas of emphasis addressed through the provision of technical assistance this year.

Training and technical assistance provided through the McDowell Institute, in concert with the dissemination of information and materials that emphasize the application of research-supported programs and practices to support student success, have played an important role in expanding mental health literacy in schools and communities. These endeavors have supported educators in concert with students to experience increasingly nurturing (trauma-informed) school environments. Collectively, we all benefit in the short and long-term as a result of these endeavors.

The McDowell Institute, as evidenced through these impact data, continues to make a positive difference through

collaboration with local, state, and national level partners across schools and communities. This impact continues to be realized in both PK-12 educational settings and across university and college campuses. Scholarly endeavors associated with each of the previously noted examples of impact continues to generate publications across a variety of outlets and presentations at both the state and national levels. The impact of the numerous philanthropic gifts of Susan W. McDowell in tandem with growing philanthropic gifts and external grants from other sources continues to be felt by students and teachers today and will undoubtedly continue to benefit the students and teachers of tomorrow.

TOPIC NUMBER NUMBERS OF OF EVENTS STUDENT/FACULTY

Preventive Classroom Management 10 972

YMHFA 9 223

QPR 13 431

McDowell Virtual Modules In-service embedded 225

Note: The above data does not reflect impact data from the externally funded YMHFA/QPR IHE Project

TOPIC NUMBER OF ENGAGED SCHOOL STAFF HOURS ASSOCIATED PK-12 STUDENT IMPACT

PBIS / SBBH/PAYS 712 121 22,312

Suicide Prevention 208 37 11,219

PBIS: Positive Behavior Support Framework SBBH: School-based Behavioral Health PAYS: Pennsylvania Youth Survey

Susan McDowell



TRAUMA-INFORMED CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT SELF-ASSESSMENT FORM: THE BAKER’S DOZEN SELF-RATING

1 | I have taken into consideration my knowledge of the life experiences (including traumatic Yes No experiences) of my students in designing my management plan.

2

| I have arranged my classroom to minimize crowding and distraction and to provide ample Yes No

space for movement and a clear line of sight.

3

| I have maximized structure and predictability in my classroom (e.g., explicit classroom routines, Yes No specific directions, etc.).

4

| I have frequently interacted with my students to build/enhance rapport during non-instructional Yes No

times in the school day.

5 | I have posted, taught, reviewed, and reinforced 3-5 positively stated expectations. Yes No

6 | I provided more frequent acknowledgment for prosocial behaviors than undesired behaviors. Yes No

7 | I provided each student with multiple opportunities to respond and participate during instruction. Yes No

8 | My instruction actively engaged students in observable ways (e.g., writing, verbalizing). Yes No

9 | I actively supervised my classroom (e.g., moving, scanning) during instruction. Yes No

10 | I systematically ignored inconsequential/nuisance level inappropriate behavior. Yes No

11

| I provided quick, direct, explicit redirections in response to consequential/problem level undesired Yes No

behavior in a calm, constructive manner (as relevant).

12

| I have multiple strategies/systems in place to acknowledge appropriate behavior (e.g., class point Yes No

systems, praise, etc.).

13

| In general, I have provided specific feedback in response to social and academic behavior correct Yes No responses and errors.

Scoring Note: In the event that items 10 & 11 were not applicable (that is, no occurrences of nuisance or problem behavior occurred), score both of these items as “Yes”. Adapted from Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, & Sugai 2006; (Revised from Colvin & Sugai)

Overall classroom management Self-score: 13 — 12 “Yes” = “Super, but I need to stay vigilant in my approach.” 11 — 9 “Yes” = “So-So, however I need to increase my focus and performance in a few areas” <9 “Yes” = “I need to ramp up my efforts in a number of areas.”

Effective classroom management helps to provide a safe and predictable learning environment for students. As important as this is for all students, it is particularly essential for students that have experienced the adverse effects of trauma. Classroom teachers are acting in a trauma-informed manner when they put in practice positive, proactive classroom management procedures.

Further, most teachers indicate that classroom and behavior management represents one of the most challenging aspects of the instructional day. This is not a new trend. There are numerous resources available for teachers to help

them self-monitor the effects of their classroom management procedures. As useful as these resources are, some prove to be labor intensive. For a tool to be useful it needs to be both empirically sound and practical (time efficient) to use so that teachers can periodically self-evaluate how they are managing their classrooms. This is where the Trauma-informed Classroom Management Self-Assessment Form: The Baker’s Dozen is helpful. This tool, based on previous work by Simonsen, Fairbanks, Breisch, & Sugai (2006), provides a time efficient way for teachers to self-check their classroom management. The 13 items

reflect research-supported practices, that when consistently employed, have been shown to positively impact student behavior. The tool is easy to use. The teacher simply creates a schedule in which they reflectively self-evaluate following a targeted instructional time block (e.g., once a week but altering the time or instructional period on a weekly basis). The reflective thought by the teacher typically takes no more than a few minutes, but can pay big dividends for a teacher in terms of reinforcing effective practice as well as helping to highlight areas in need of further attention and improvement.

A Trauma-Informed Classroom Management SELF-CHECK TOOL

CLASSROOM SPOTLIGHT



Cohort 1 IHEs (2018)Bloomsburg University

Cabrini University

California University of PA

East Stroudsburg University

Eastern University

Edinboro University

Holy Family University

Indiana University

Shippensburg University

Slippery Rock University

Saint Joseph’s University

Susquehanna University

York College of PA

Cohort 2 IHEs (2019)Arcadia University

Clarion University

Drexel University

Elizabethtown College

Gannon University

Grove City College

Kutztown University

Misericordia University

Penn State Harrisburg

Temple University

University of Pennsylvania

West Chester University

Westminster College

Cohort 3 IHE’s (2020)Bucknell University

Carlow University

Chatham University

DeSales University

Lock Haven University

Luzerne County Community College

Marywood University

Messiah College

Point Park University

University of Pittsburgh at Greenburg

University of Valley Forge

Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3

Geographic Distribution of Participating College/Universities

Building Mental Health Literacy Among Educator Preparatory Programs in Pennsylvania

There are over 90 IHEs in Pennsylvania that operate varying types of educator preparatory programs. In designing this initiative emphasis was placed on engaging IHEs that were geographically distributed across regions of the state in tandem with focusing on both undergraduate and graduate-level preparatory programs. Further emphasis was also placed on establishing a healthy balance of public and private IHEs that varied in size. The impact of the initiative over the two-year time frame has been significant.

Over the past two years, the McDowell Institute has been awarded approximately $415,000.00 in external funding to provide leadership and guidance to institutions of higher education (IHEs) across the commonwealth to expand mental health literacy within educator preparatory programs. In 2018 and 2019, twenty-seven IHEs participated in this initiative.

As an outgrowth of this impact, the McDowell Institute has been awarded an additional third year of external funding ($243,000) to sustain this initiative with the IHEs from Cohorts 1 & 2, while also on-boarding additional IHEs in 2020. The new IHEs joining the initiative are diverse in terms of their public and private nature, size and geographic location. This new cohort also reflects, for the first time, a few community colleges.

Beyond the immediate impact of these trainings, a collaborative research agenda has continued in operation the past few years with a growing data base specific to the efficacy of providing YMHFA training to pre-service educators prior to their student teaching placements. Stage one of this research occurs within two weeks of initial completion of YMHFA training and assesses the knowledge and insight gained by these student teachers as a result of completing the training. Stage two occurs three to four months post-training and assesses impact on practice in the field with these same student teachers. Analyses of these data to date appear highly encouraging across both stages of measurement. Here is some excerpted data to illustrate.

CAPACITY BUILDING VARIABLE

Credentialed YMHFA Instructors

Credentialed QPR Instructors

Number of YMHFA Trainings

Number of QPR Trainings

Number of Pre-service Educators Trained in YMHFA

Number of Pre-service Educators Trained in QPR

Number of IHEs that have been approved to offer within their educator preparatory programs the PDE Endorsement in Social-Emotional-Behavioral Wellness PK-12 Students

2018 & 2019 TRAINING DATA

73

31

95

47

2335

1247

5



Proportion of Respondents to a Few Example Items on Stage I Impact Survey

SURVEY ITEM As a result of YMHFA training, I am more aware of how social, emotional, and behavioral matters might influence student learning.

As a result of YMHFA training, I am better able to effectively reach out to a student who may be experiencing a mental health challenge.

As a result of YMHFA training, I am better able to offer a student who appears distressed basic “first aid” level mental health information and reassurance.

As a result of YMHFA training, I am better able to assist a student who is experiencing a mental health problem or crisis seek professional help.

As a result of YMHFA training, I am more aware of my own views and feelings about mental health problems and disorders and how my views and feelings can influence my interactions with my students.

As a result of YMHFA training, I am better able to ask a student whether s/he is considering self-injury and/or suicide.

Based on my experiences with initial YMHFA training, I feel sufficiently prepared to provide mental health first aid to a student at school or in the community.

STRONGLY AGREE & AGREE RESPONSES

97%

94%

97%

94%

97%

94%

94%

Proportion of Respondents Stage II Indicating Use ofComponent Parts of YMHFA Skills (ALGEE Elements)

YMHFA COMPONENT PARTS REPORTED USED WITH PK-12 STUDENTS

No component parts used during student teaching placement

Component 1 used during student teaching

Components 1 & 2 used during student teaching

Components 1 through 3 used during student teaching

Components 1 through 4 used during student teaching

All 5 components used during student teaching

PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS

2.1%

24.4%

19.5%

22%

9.8%

22.2%

Component 1: (A) Assess for risk of suicide or harm

Component 2:

(L) Listen non-judgmentally

Component 3:

(G) Give reassurance and information

Component 4:

(E) Encourage appropriate professional help

Component 5:

(E) Encourage self-help and other support strategies.

Check us out on the web at bloomu.edu/mcdowell



EVIDENCE-BASED SUICIDE PREVENTION TRAINING

MCDOWELLUPDATES

Question-Persuade-Refer (QPR)

QPR continues to be a high priority for the McDowell Institute. This spring all College of Education majors that were formally admitted into teacher education candidacy were scheduled to complete QPR training. Approximately 110 BU students are scheduled at this time. However, due to the emergent challenges associated with the coronavirus at the time of this update, final details will be forthcoming. Beyond these trainings, the McDowell Institute is continuing to expand an initiative with local partners (e.g., United Way, the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit and Geisinger Medical Center) to provide training and guidance to 45 school-district employed QPR instructors within the immediate five-county region covered by the CSIU. This initiative is building capacity of schools within the region to provide QPR training to their respective staffs and resultantly impacts over 20,000 students across 17 school districts within the CSIU region. Further, this innovative approach positions the McDowell Institute to increasingly focus time and energy through technical assistance to help ensure this training is situated within Multi-tiered Systems of Support.

Kognito Virtual ModulesThe Institute continues to provide access for the BU community to virtual suicide prevention modules. One module is completed by all education majors enrolled in ED FOUND 291. Close to 600 aspiring BU educators have successfully completed this module over the last few years. A second module that explicitly emphasizes college and university settings continue to be available to faculty and staff at BU. Faculty and staff interested in completing this module are encouraged to contact Danielle Empson ([email protected]) at the McDowell Institute.

Youth Mental Health First Aid (YMHFA)The Institute provided four concurrent sections of YMHFA training to 105 student teachers on January 17 prior to their school placements this spring 2020. These BU student teachers utilized the skills learned through this training with approximately 2,500 PK-12 students across their school placements. The provision of YMHFA training, in concert with other forms of mental health literacy and suicide prevention training, is aligned and supports the College of Education’s approved Pennsylvania Department of Education Endorsement in Social, Emotional and Behavioral Wellness in PK-12 Students.

JED Campus Initiative at BU Bloomsburg University is continuing its journey towards becoming a JED Campus. A nationwide initiative of The Jed Foundation (JED), JED Campus is designed to guide schools through a collaborative process of program and policy development that builds upon existing student mental health, substance abuse, and suicide prevention efforts. JED Campus schools embark on a strategic partnership that assesses and enhances existing work and helps to create positive, lasting, systemic change in the campus community. One of the important features of the JED Campus process involves completion of two in-depth, confidential surveys (over three years) to assess mental health promotion, substance use and suicide prevention efforts. BU students recently completed the Healthy Minds Survey this past February. The resultant data from this most recent survey will be used to guide strategic planning moving forward.



The adoption and implementation of evidence-based programs and practices is encouraged in schools. Further, schools are encouraged to situate the adoption and implementation of both evidence-based programs and practices within a Multi-tiered Systems of Support (e.g., School-wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support-SWPBIS).

The terms “evidence-based program” and “evidence-based practice” are often mistakenly used interchangeably. In a related manner, confusion also exists between use of the terms “empirically-validated” and “empirically-based.” While the concepts that these terms connote are related, it is important to understand the distinction between these terms. To illustrate, empirically-validated programs are those that have been scientifically studied, typically with experimental and control groups that reflect careful measurement of specific outcomes, including treatment integrity/fidelity metrics, and scrutinized through peer review. Empirically-based practices include approaches for which scientific studies have not specifically evaluated their merits as a package (or program); however, the strategies employed are regarded as effective

practices as validated in the literature. By way of example, the PAX Good Behavior Game (Embry, 2013) is an empirically-validated trauma-informed program with numerous scientifically conducted studies to support its effectiveness as a packaged intervention. On the other hand, a teacher who develops a classroom-specific, yet still trauma-informed, system for positive reinforcement of pro-social behavior is implementing an empirically-based practice as decades of research validates

that positive reinforcement is effective for promoting pro-social behavior. The teacher’s specific intervention (positive reinforcement program), however, has not been scientifically tested and therefore would not meet the standard of being empirically-validated.

To further illustrate, please note the distinction between a program and a practice as well as the difference between empirically-validated and empirically-based programs and practices depicted below.

What does it mean to be “evidence-based” and the relationship between empirically-valid and empirically-based programs and practices?

INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM OR PRACTICE

TYPE OF EVIDENCE

Empirically-Validated (rigorous scientific study has determined that

this specific program or practice works)

Ex: PAX Good Behavior Game

Ex: Youth Mental Health First Aid

Ex: Positive reinforcement to increase targeted behavior

Ex: Expressing empathy toward a student in need

Ex: A teacher’s friendly in classroom competition between groups of students

to see which group(s) can meet a specified behavioral performance criterion.

Ex: Lunch bunches / Friendship groups

Ex: Using a 3 second wait-time when soliciting responses from students in

a group instructional setting.

Ex: Greeting kids at the door when they come into class each period.

Program (a packaged intervention)

Practice (nothing you can buy; not a product or specific commercial product, nor a packaged intervention / program)

Empirically-Based (rigorous scientific study has not determined that this specific program or practice works;

however, this program or practice is based on scientific study that suggests it would work)



The legislation known as Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that replaced No Child Left Behind and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act further establishes important distinctions concerning evidence-based criteria. The ESSA (unlike prior federal law) establishes criteria for defining evidence-based approaches across a level system. These criteria (or levels) occur along a continuum from most to least robust (strong) forms of empirical evidence.

So, what does this mean for educators in schools?

School systems, and subsequently teachers in classrooms, are encouraged to ensure that 1) programs and practices currently being employed reflect alignment with the above-noted criteria as well as 2) new approaches being considered reflect a sufficient level of empirical support. To illustrate, increasingly schools are looking to select and install Social Emotional Learning (SEL) curricula in their endeavors to meet the needs of their students in a trauma-informed manner. However, it is important to understand that not all SEL curricula reflect the same degree of empirical rigor as previously described.

One highlight of the ESSA criteria is that it conveys recognition that not all forms of evaluation (or research) are equal. Further, the ESSA firmly instills the notion that students and communities are best served when educators implement proven approaches, and ideally approaches that reflect either Strong Evidence or Moderate Evidence (e.g., installing an SEL curriculum that meets this standard). To this end, here

are a few noteworthy websites that are considered as reliable sources when exploring evidence-based programs (e.g., Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearing House, National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, American Psychological Association). Further, to support schools in the commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) website reflects practices that align with the criteria set forth through the ESSA.

The increasing emphasis on trauma-informed as well as trauma-specific practices that reflect either strong or moderate levels of evidence is not intended to suggest that educators should never employ approaches that reflect the two lower levels of evidence as shown in the table above. To the contrary, such approaches may serve students well in schools. However, the idea is that to the greatest extent possible educational practices should have either strong or moderate levels of evidence.

EVIDENCE-BASED LEVELS GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS

Strong evidence means the approach/practice/program is supported by at least one randomized – control study and is considered the highest level of empirical validation (what some refer to as the “Gold Standard” in research in the social sciences).

Moderate Evidence means the approach/practice/program has been validated by at least one quasi-experimental study (albeit not meeting the gold standard empirical validation of being a randomized control investigation).

Promising Evidence means the approach/practice/program has been validated by at least one correlational study with pretests as covariates. While not as robust as Strong or Moderate Evidence levels, there is sufficient evidence to support an approach/practice/program that has been empirically validated falling at this level (category)as promising in terms of consideration for use in schools.

This level is reserved for empirically-based approaches/practices/programs that 1) appear likely to improve student or other relevant school related outcomes and 2) are undergoing evaluation with research being conducted. This is also often referred to as “Strong Theory” (all though the ESSA does not specifically use this term).

Strong Evidence

Moderate Evidence

Promising Evidence

Programs with Rationale based on High Quality Research or a Positive Evaluation

mcdowell institute · quarterly news fi [email protected] fi apr. 2020 mcdoell institute —...

Documents