Education Writing assignment

Implement inclusive anti-bullying programs for disabled children

Facility

Participants

Trained faculty

Sponsors ($)

Studies and research

Social skill training for all students

New skills for combating bullying implemented throughout the community; skills are transferred

IF:

Interactive awareness training for teachers, students, staff and parents

Specific social skill building exercises for disabled students

Disabled children and their families experience decreased struggles in the area of bullying

Coordinate, monitor, and evaluate services for consumers and families

Better quality of life due to improved mental health

Social behavior changes, increased friendships among community, disabled children are in safer environments

Increased disability awareness throughout the community

THEN

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 3

(Narrative 1) A theory of change model presents an idea in a direct manner and incorporates strategies and results (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). The model was created to support the idea that an inclusive anti-bullying program, Inclusive Bullying Prevention (IBP), will benefit children with developmental disabilities. The objective is to increase disability awareness, offer coping skills, change behavior, decrease mental health problems, and promote better quality of life. A needs assessment was completed to establish the need for inclusive anti-bullying programs in Maine; data was collected through examination of research and reports. Analysis should comprise identification of variables, aggregation and cross-tabulation of data to uncover interactions; factorial analysis should be utilized to scrutinize interconnected variables (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2013). Inclusive programs, ones incorporating multiple entities and strategies, are likely to be successful in terms of decreasing bullying (Dake, Price, & Tellijohann, 2003), however, programs rarely integrate disability research (Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2010). The needs of disabled students are ignored and these students experience high victimization rates (Lindsay & McPherson, 2011). The needs assessment served as a tool for the deliberation of specific services and the availability of resources. Information from state agencies, schools, families, and disability organizations was combined to examine all findings connected to victimization, and this information was utilized to suggest interventions.

Victimization has been linked to lack of knowledge, awareness, and resources; disabled students reported discriminatory school employees (Lindsay & McPherson, 2011). Nowicki (2006) found that non-disabled students ranked disabled children as being dissimilar. However, interactive trainings led to almost 85% of students feeling more informed about disabilities (Lindsay, McPherson, Aslam, McKeever, & Wright, 2013). Many counties devote little spending to special education resources (Maine Department of Education, 2013) and little collaboration

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 4

between schools and disability organizations exists (Maine Department of Education, 2007). Services were found to be improperly coordinated; as many as 37% who reported seeking services stated that no interventions had been implemented (Saufler & Gagne, 2000), and parents often reported forced relocation (Kluth, Biklen, English-Sand, & Smukler, 2007). Disabled students were reported to be placed in separate classrooms and schools, which led to increased bullying (Rose et al., 2010). Studies also suggested amplified rates of mental health concerns for bullied students (Campbell, Missiuna, & Vaillancourt, 2012; Missiuna, Moll, King, & Law, 2007). In these cases, bullied students may require more severe assistance, such as mental health treatment. As a result of increased inclusive programming that promotes awareness, communities could experience a reduction of ignorance, segregation, and overall victimization.

According to Knowlton & Phillips (2009), three steps are executed to form this model: (A) establishment of desired results, (B) proposal of strategies related to desired results, and (C) incorporation of assumptions. These authors stated that the end goal offers direction for proposed strategies. Research suggested increased rates of victimization and segregated environments (Rose et al., 2010), so intended results included decreased rates and more inclusive schools. Strategies grounded in literature display a higher chance of safeguarding the desired results, in addition, strategies connect means and ends (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). Research of causes, interventions, and other concerns was utilized to propose strategies that are specific to disabled students, for example, strategies to improve appropriate social interaction, since impairments in this area lead to isolation (Nevill & White, 2011). Multiple strategies are suggested for more complex problems (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009); studies suggested that when anti-bullying programs incorporated multiple strategies and more inclusive practices to deal with this intricate

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 5

issue, schools were likely to witness a decrease in bullying (Dake et al., 2003), therefore, this model includes a variety of interconnected strategies. Effective models incorporate assumptions based upon knowledge in order to construct informed decisions (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). The model assumes, based on research of values, experiences, and habits, that inclusive support strategies will lead to an increase in disability awareness, skills/transfer of skills, collectiveness, social behavior changes, safer environments, and a decrease in mental health issues and victimization rates. Assumptions support strategies and were based upon research, for example, one study found that disabled teens suggested some teachers were ignorant of their needs; it was stated that if adults were more educated in terms of disabilities and inclusive practices (and if they then transfer skills to students), disabled students would feel safer (Lindsay & McPherson, 2011). As a result, one would assume that the strategy of disability awareness training will lead to increased awareness, skill level, and feelings of safety for disabled students. The model format guides individuals through immense ideas and should be self-explanatory for a variety of audiences (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). Bullying is a complicated issue, one involving numerous factors (Flynt & Morton, 2004), so this model expresses that without being overwhelming. Building a model requires evidence-based thinking and plausibility, which means models must be supported by evidence and that ideas “could work” (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). The model is grounded in research related to bullying causes, experiences and aftereffects, and an assessment of resources in Maine and research on what could work under what conditions was implemented to consider plausibility. The model offers a simplistic representation of how change could transpire and it was based on knowledge obtained from literature; knowledge from research provides a sense of direction for possible program choices (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009).

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 6

Resources Activities Outputs Short-term Outcomes Intermediate/Long-Term Outcomes

Increase in utilized skills; participants implement inclusive practices

Sponsors

Disability support groups

# and type of participants; # and type of curriculum and training units

Increase in disability knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors

Improved mental health status; at-risk students utilize skills and knowledge to support each other; decreased stress

Awareness training for teachers, students, staff, and parents

Research

Completion rates

Long-term collectiveness and safety

Social skill training for all students

Faculty

Increase in social behavior changes; clients use knowledge and skills to interact with peers

Client satisfaction

Increase in awareness

Participants

Skill building exercises for disabled students

Instructional delivery quality

Disabled students utilize learned social skills to form friendships

Facility

Coordination Activities

Messages

Increase in motivation; participants collaborate and transfer skills to strengthen community

Collaboration of agencies

Impact

Safer and more inclusive schools

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 7

(Narrative 2). The program logic model serves as a more detailed version of the theory of change model and was based on the same assumptions derived from the research, though may need to be updated in the future if dynamics change (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). IBP should increase awareness and knowledge, which would create a more cooperative climate (Croxall, 2005). Participants should utilize obtained skills to encourage inclusion and to model appropriate behaviors, which decreases bullying (Burkhart, Knox, & Brockmyer, 2013). Mental health issues should decrease due to supportive groups (Neville & White, 2011), and victimization should decrease by 50% if students are trained in intervention (Cappacodica, Weiss, Pepler, 2011; Fekkes et al., 2005; Hawkins et al., 2001). Students could utilize skills to connect with peers, which reduces isolation (Lindsay & McPherson, 2011; Nadeau & Tessier, 2006). Safer settings should benefit disabled students, who expressed feelings of loneliness (Lindsay & McPherson, 2011). For the outcome “Increased disability awareness”, assumptions include (A) availability of resources/funding, (B) participants attend school in Maine (or have a child who attends) or be employed by the school, and (C) students are selected from special needs classrooms. For the outcome “New skills are implemented/transferred”, assumptions include those above and (A) participants attend developmentally appropriate sessions, (B) programs are accessible, and (C) program staff members are educated and trained. For the goal “Social changes/increased friendships/safer environments”, assumptions include those above and (A) coordinators meet with parents and school staff to discuss inclusion. For the goal “Improved mental health”, assumptions include those above and (A) coordinators provide mental health resources. Model components were formed from examination of studies, interviews, and reports. According to Knowlton & Phillips (2009), the first three steps include identifying results,

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 8

outcomes, and activities. These authors stated that intended results are established first and then outcomes are acknowledged to scrutinize changes arising due to the intervention. Short term outcomes include an increase in positive attitudes, knowledge, skills, positive behaviors, and awareness. Intermediate/long-term goals would be examined six months later and would include matters such as level-of-functioning scales to note behavior changes present due to interventions (Kettner et al., 2013). Goals include improved mental health status, an increase in applied skills, increased safety, a decrease in stress and isolation, and an increase in motivation. For the first outcome, “Increased disability awareness”, the presence of obtained knowledge would serve as the indicator, the population examined would involve all participants (school staff, parents, students, etc…), and in terms of the threshold, increased knowledge should be observed within one year and coordinators will record progress through portfolio reports. For the outcome, “New skills are implemented and transferred”, indicators include matters such as trained staff members and increased inclusive practices within the classroom, the home, and community. The population includes all participants, and in terms of the threshold, coordinators will maintain records related to inclusive practices implemented and coordinators will meet with participants to document feedback. For the outcome, “Social behavior changes/increased friendships, disabled children are in safer environments”, the population includes all students. In terms of the threshold, bullying rates should decrease by 50% and community participation should increase. For the outcome, “Better quality of life due to improved mental health”, the population includes disabled students and the threshold includes ending therapy due to decreased mental health concerns. The impact of safer and more inclusive schools was documented as an aspiring goal that will require time, effort, and assistance from a variety of agencies, therefore, local and

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 9

national agencies were researched. The impact is the ultimate intended change; this program should be monitored for seven to ten years to examine if change was long-lasting (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). Activities, specific actions that produce outcomes (Kettner et al., 2013), were also recognized. Disability awareness trainings will educate through interactive sessions; in one program, 84.8% of students rated themselves as more educated about disabilities after interactive trainings (Lindsay, McPherson, Aslam, McKeever, &Wright, 2013). Disabled students in support groups will engage in individual expression (Nevill & White, 2011). Students will participate in social skill training that highlights matters such as respect and self-regulation, since deficiencies are connected to bullying (Heinrichs, 2003). To help form friendships, trainings for disabled students will teach social skills (Nevill & White, 2011). All strategies reflected accepted knowledge in the field to provide accuracy (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). Multiple stakeholders were considered through an exploration of research, such as teacher, parent, and student reports. The incorporation of multilayered elements and activities assisted in the process of recognizing feasibility (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009).

In addition, the last two steps included defining resources and outputs (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). The elements that contribute to activities (resources) were classified (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009) and included sponsors, research, faculty, participants, facility, and collaboration; effective programs considered a variety of entities (Dake et al., 2003). Examination of literature was utilized to assess the availability of resources. IBP only incorporates the main entities involved (parents, students, school employees). Families are forced to relocate in order to access more accepting schools (Kluth, Biklen, English-Sand, & Smukler, 2007), and so it is crucial to first involve the members most affected. Funding obstacles existed;

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 10

some schools only allocated 0.14% of funding to special education resources (Maine Department of Education, 2007). Multiple stakeholders, perspectives, and interconnected variables were considered (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009), for example, research was conducted in regards to availability of disability specific agencies in Maine that specialize in anti-bullying implementation; only one agency was found. Reluctance from school employees was also considered; many professionals did not consider bullying to be an immense problem (Rose et al., 2010). To establish plausibility and feasibility, multiple strategies that will work together to tackle this complex issue were incorporated (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). Since bullying is a multidimensional issue, resources must be sufficient (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009), which is the reason as to why established research was utilized. Since IBP is a new program and resources are limited, only a few strategies were devised and all only involved those most affected. Little research exists in regards to victimization of disabled students (Cappadocia et al., 2011), however, this is an intricate issue (Croxall, 2005). Before promoting further elements, more research (and resources) would be necessary, in addition to more advocacy and collaboration with local/state agencies to assist with further funding. Outputs were acknowledged to confirm that activities grasped the right audiences (Kettner et al., 2013). Outputs include the number and type of participants, completion rates, satisfaction scores, and messages. According to Kettner et al. (2013), outputs are products that include quantitative and qualitative dynamics; measurements examine the service received and the completed treatment (numerical data/percentages/units of service, such as number of sessions, number of clients who completed treatment, would be gathered). Quality could be addressed through established standards (Kettner et al., 2013), so safety standards or anti-bullying state laws would be beneficial.

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 11

Activities could be measured in a variety of ways and numerous methods could be developed, for example, case notes, pretest/posttests, attendance/completion forms, records of progress, etc… Numeric counts will be collected through calculating the amount of received services (Kettner et al., 2013). According to Kettner et al. (2013), level of functioning scales identify areas of improvement and rate clients. Clients will answer questions pertaining to personal satisfaction of the program. Surveys could be given throughout various points to examine achievement (Kettner et al., 2013). Formative assessment will be conducted; as the program is being implemented, surveys will gather data, for example, in relation to consumer’s perception of trainings (Kettner et al., 2013). According to Kettner et al. (2013), summative evaluations will examine if results were achieved, therefore, at the end, content based surveys will question the extent of knowledge obtained. Six months after the program, surveys will question the impact of the program, portfolios will allow participants to display knowledge, and level-of-functioning scales will assess if change occurred (Kettner et al., 2013). Long term outcomes could be measured through assessment of school reports related to bullying incidences. For numerical counts, percentages are calculated by utilizing outcome indicators (bullying reduction) (Kettner et al., 2013). For level-of-functioning scales, pre-assessments and post-assessments take place and the variances between pre-scores and post-scores could signify matters such as improved social skills (Kettner et al., 2013). The percentage of positive client feedback would suggest positive outcomes (Kettner et al., 2013). Final impacts are measured through standardized numerical count indicators (victimization rates) (Kettner et al., 2013). Factor analysis would identify underlying factors; the process should include identification of variables, aggregation and cross-tabulation of data to expose interactions (Kettner et al., 2013).

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 12

References

Burkhart, K., Knox, M., & Brockmyer, J. (2013). Pilot evaluation of the ACT raising safe kids program on children's bullying behavior. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 22, 942-952.

Campbell, W., Missiuna, C., & Vaillancourt, T. (2012). Peer victimization and depression in children with and without motor coordinate on difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 328-342.

Cappadocia, M., Weiss, J., & Pepler, D. (2011). Bullying experiences among children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 42, 266-278.

Croxall, K. (2005). Reducing bullying through prevention. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 97, 65-67.

Dake, J., Price, J., & Telljohann, S. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 73, 173-181.

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. (2005). Bullying: who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20, 81–91.

Flynt, S. & Morton, R. (2004). Bullying and children with disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 330-334.

Hawkins, D., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512-527.

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAMS 13

Heinrichs, R. (2003). A whole-school approach to bullying: Special considerations for children with exceptionalities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 195-204.

Kettner, Peter M., Moroney, Robert M., and Martin, Lawrence L. (2013). Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness-Based Approach (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Kluth, P., Biklen, D., English-Sand, P., & Smukler, D. (2007). Going away to school. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, 43-57.

Knowlton, L. W. & Phillips, C. C. (2009). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lindsay, S. & McPherson, A. (2011). Strategies for improving disability awareness and social inclusion of children and young people with cerebral palsy. Child: Care, Health & Development, 38, 809-818.

Lindsay, S., McPherson, A., Aslam, H., McKeever, P., & Wright, V. (2013). Exploring children's perceptions of two school-based social inclusion programs: a pilot study. Child & Youth Care Forum, 42, 1-18.

Maine Department of Education. (2007). Maine Bullying Prevention. Retrieved from: http://www.maine.gov.