Approach to Reducing the Achievement Gap Paul A. LeBuffe Jennifer - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
approach to reducing the
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Approach to Reducing the Achievement Gap Paul A. LeBuffe Jennifer - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 16, 2024 14 likes •465 views

Social and Emotional Assessment and Intervention: A Promising Approach to Reducing the Achievement Gap Paul A. LeBuffe Jennifer Fleming Robitaille Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health Center for Resilient Children Villanova, PA Council of

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Social and Emotional Assessment and Intervention: A Promising Approach to Reducing the Achievement Gap

Paul A. LeBuffe Jennifer Fleming Robitaille

Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health Center for Resilient Children Villanova, PA

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) 2016 National Conference on Student Assessment

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Symposium Outline

  • 1. LeBuffe - Overview of the Devereux Student

Strengths Assessment (DESSA) Comprehensive System

  • 2. Robitaille - Presentation of research findings

concerning the contributions of both economic disadvantage and social emotional competence as measured by the DESSA-mini to the achievement gap

  • 3. Discussion, Q & A
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Disclaimer

  • LeBuffe is the lead author of the DESSA.
  • Neither LeBuffe nor Robitaille receive financial

reward for the sale of the DESSA.

  • However, royalties from the DESSA are an

important revenue stream for the Devereux Center for Resilient Children.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Devereux Center for Resilient Children

  • Our mission is to promote

social and emotional development, foster resilience and build skills for school and life success in children birth through school-age, as well as to promote the resilience of the adults who care for them.

www.CenterForResilientChildren.org

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Overview of the DESSA Comprehensive System

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Emerging Importance of SEL

  • Collaborative for Academic, Social, and

Emotional Learning (CASEL.org)

  • Increasing number of state and local

educational agencies adopting social and emotional learning standards

  • Durlak et. al., 2011
  • Popular Press (e.g. Paul Tough, Angela

Duckworth)

  • ESSA – at least one “non-academic” measure
slide-7
SLIDE 7

CASEL Meta-analysis (213 studies 270,000 K-

12 students) 9% improvement in attitudes about self,

  • thers, and school

23% improvement in social and emotional skills 9% improvement in classroom behavior 11% improvement in achievement test scores 9% decrease in conduct problems, such as classroom misbehavior and aggression 10% decrease in emotional distress, such as anxiety and depression

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta- analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405-432.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

DESA System Key Features

  • Entirely Strength-Based Approach
  • Behavior Rating Scale completed by parents,

teachers, and out-of-school time professionals

  • Grades K-8 (9-12 to be published Spring 2017)
  • Nationally Normed (n=2, 498)
  • Strong Psychometrics (detail to follow)
  • Evo SEL web-based platform
  • English, Spanish, Dutch and Italian
  • Appropriately used by teachers
slide-9
SLIDE 9

What are the Needs & Components?

  • Universal Screening
  • Detailed Assessment
  • SEL Instruction
  • Progress Monitoring
  • Outcome Evaluation

& Quality Improvement

  • DESSA-mini
  • DESSA
  • DESSA Strategies
  • Ongoing Progress

Monitoring Form (OPM)

  • Advanced

Interpretation Techniques

slide-10
SLIDE 10

The DESSA-mini

  • Four parallel 8-item forms
  • Completed in 1 minute by teachers
  • Yields one score – Social-Emotional Total Score

(SET)

  • The DESSA-mini allows for:
  • Universal screening
  • Repeated evaluation
slide-11
SLIDE 11
slide-12
SLIDE 12
slide-13
SLIDE 13

CASEL (2012)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

DESSA Scales

  • Social Emotional Composite (SEC)
  • Eight Scales:
  • Self Awareness
  • Self-Management
  • Social-Awareness
  • Relationship Skills
  • Goal-Directed Behavior
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Decision Making
  • Optimistic Thinking
slide-15
SLIDE 15

DESSA Results

  • T Scores
  • Mean of 50, SD of 10
  • Percentiles
  • Descriptive Terms for Score Ranges
  • > 60 = Strength
  • 41-59 = Typical
  • < 40 = Need for Instruction
  • Individual Profile
  • Classroom Profile
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Individual Student Profile

slide-17
SLIDE 17
slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Pretest-Posttest Comparisons

Pretest-Posttest Comparison Time 1 T- Score Posttest Confidence Range Time 2 T-Score Outcome – Check One

Significant Decline

No Change

Significant Increase

Personal Responsibility

58 50-65 65 X

Optimistic Thinking

39 31-49 48 X

Goal-Directed Behavior

51 44-58 50 X

Social Awareness

60 51-67 69 X

Decision Making

48 40-56 38 X

Relationship Skills

58 51-64 62 X

Self-Awareness

40 32-50 57 X

Self-Management

53 45-60 59 X

Social-Emotional Composite

51 48-54 57 X

Rater 1 Name: ________________ Rater 2 Name: ________________ Date of Rating: ________________ Date of Rating: ________________

Mary Smith Mary Smith 10/10/14 2/28/15

slide-21
SLIDE 21

DESSA-mini: Key Psychometrics

  • Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)
  • Ranges from .91 to .92
  • Alternate Form Reliability
  • Ranges from .90 to .93
  • Predictive Validity with full DESSA
  • Sensitivity .63
  • Specificity .98
  • Consistent Classification 87% of the time
slide-22
SLIDE 22

DESSA: Key Psychometrics

  • Internal Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)
  • SEC (total Score) .98 (parents) .99 (teachers)
  • Scales .82 to .89 for parents; .86 to .94 (teachers)
  • Criterion Validity
  • SED vs. non SED (d-ratios )
  • SEC 1.33
  • Scales .97 – 1.28
  • Construct Validity
  • Convergent validity with the BASC and BERS
  • Strengths .77 - .92
  • Deficits -.64 - -.72
slide-23
SLIDE 23

Social and Emotional Competence and the Income Achievement Gap

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Background

  • Achievement Gap definition:
  • Differences in academic performance between

groups of students of different backgrounds

  • Race and ethnicity, gender, English language learners, disability,

and income status

  • Income achievement gap
  • Significant achievement gaps exist between low and

high income students on most measures of academic success (Reardon, 2013)

  • Graduation rates in 2013: 73.3% for low income students vs.

81.4% national rate (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015)

  • Persistent gaps in NAEP test scores based on eligibility for free
  • r reduced price lunch (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014)
slide-25
SLIDE 25

Background

  • Income Achievement Gap (con’t)
  • Gap is already large when children enter

kindergarten (Reardon, 2011)

  • Gap has grown widely in last three decades (Reardon,

2013)

  • Changing US demographics:
  • Persistent increase in the growth of low income

public school students (51% in 2013)

  • In 21 states, 50% or more of students eligible for

free or reduced price lunch (Southern Education Foundation,

2015)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Research Question

  • Evidence that Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)

can lead to improvements in academic achievement

  • Durlak et al., 2011 – 11 percentile point gain
  • Can we narrow the income achievement

gap by promoting students’ social and emotional competence?

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Allentown School District

  • 3rd largest urban school system in PA
  • Student enrollment ~17,500
  • 23 schools
  • Diverse student body:
  • 65% Hispanic ethnicity
  • 86% eligible for free/reduced price

lunch

  • 2011 – 2014: District-wide SEL Initiative
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Method

  • Teachers completed DESSA-mini 3 times per

year

  • Pre – October
  • Mid – January/February
  • Post – June
  • Students completed Pennsylvania’s

standardized achievement tests (PSSAs) in Reading and Math in March

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Sample

  • Stratified randomly selected sample

N = 486 elementary students

  • Income (free/reduced lunch eligibility):
  • Eligible (low income) = 243; Not eligible = 243
  • Gender:
  • 140 Males in each income group (57.6%)
  • Grade
  • 87 3rd graders in each income group (35.8%)
  • 87 4th graders in each income group (35.8%)
  • 69 5th graders in each income group (28.4%)
slide-30
SLIDE 30

Analysis Approach

  • 1. Examined relationship between academic

achievement and income

  • 2. Examined relationship between academic

achievement and social emotional competence

  • 3. Examined the unique contribution of income

and social emotional competence in predicting academic achievement test scores

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Income

15.2% 5.8% 21.4% 11.9% 33.7% 30.5% 29.6% 51.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Eligible (low income) Not Eligible Percent of Students Free/Reduced Lunch Eligibility

Math Proficiency and Income

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic

N = 486 elementary students (grades 3-5)

31.3% 14.0% 17.3% 12.8% 40.3% 42.4% 11.1% 30.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Eligible (low income) Not Eligible Percent of Students Free/Reduced Lunch Eligibility

Reading Proficiency and Income

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Social Emotional Competence

66.1% 16.3% 9.7% 15.8% 21.0% 44.3% 3.2% 23.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Need Not Need Percent of Students Social Emotional Competence

Reading Proficiency and Social Emotional Competence

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic 32.3% 7.3% 30.6% 14.6% 29.0% 32.5% 8.1% 45.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Need Not Need Percent of Students Social Emotional Competence

Math Proficiency and Social Emotional Competence

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic

N = 486 elementary students (grades 3-5)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Explaining the Variance in Academic Achievement Scores - Reading

8.3% 91.7%

Reading PSSA Scores Income

Income alone explains 8.3% of the variance in reading scores

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Explaining the Variance in Academic Achievement Scores - Reading

8.3% 16.5% 75.2%

Reading PSSA Scores Income Social Emotional Competence 24.8% Social emotional competence explains an additional 16.5%

  • f the variance in

reading scores

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Explaining the Variance in Academic Achievement Scores - Math

6.8% 93.2%

Math PSSA Scores Income

Income alone explains 6.8% of the variance in math scores

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Explaining the Variance in Academic Achievement Scores - Math

6.8% 15.3% 77.9%

Math PSSA Scores Income Social Emotional Competence 22.1% Social emotional competence explains an additional 15.3%

  • f the variance in

math scores

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Replication in Anchorage SD

  • Predicting variance in SBA Reading scores
  • 3rd grade only sample (N = 148)
  • Income accounted for 9%
  • SEC uniquely predicted an additional 22%
slide-38
SLIDE 38

Summary

  • Univariate
  • In the Allentown sample, SEC had a greater impact

than income on PSSA achievement

  • Reading PSSA:
  • Free/reduced lunch eligible = 48.6% below proficiency
  • Low SEC = 75.8% below proficiency
  • Multivariate
  • SEC accounted for twice the variance in

achievement test scores (reading and math) compared to income

  • Same pattern found in Anchorage sample
slide-39
SLIDE 39

Social Significance of These Findings

  • Suggests that promoting social and emotional

competence through evidence-based social and emotional learning programs implemented with fidelity may narrow the income achievement gap

  • But, won’t universal instruction “float all

boats”?

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Income and Social Emotional Competence

16.9% 8.6% 53.9% 48.6% 29.2% 42.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Eligible (low income) Not eligible Percent of Students Free/Reduced Lunch Eligibility

DESSA-mini SET Categories by Income Status

Strength Typical Need

  • Eligible students

scored significantly lower on midyear DESSA-mini compared to non- eligible students (p

<.001)

  • Eligible:
  • M = 52.3, SD = 12.1
  • Not eligible:
  • M = 56.9, SD = 11.8
slide-41
SLIDE 41

SEL Benefit as a Function of Baseline SEC

67.4 62.6 65.5 50.1 52.3 54.4 35.8 41.2 42.3 28.0 33.0 38.0 43.0 48.0 53.0 58.0 63.0 68.0 Pre Mid Post DESSA-mini SET T-Score Time

DESSA-mini T-scores Across School Year by Initial SET

Strength Typical Need

No change 4.3 point change 6.5 point change

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Implications

  • SEC is malleable and within schools’ span of

control

  • Good evidence-based programs exist for

promoting SEC

  • DESSA is a sensitive measure of these changes
  • Students with low initial SEC show greater

change as a result of SEL instruction

  • Possible path for reducing income achievement

gap

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Limitations

  • Did not measure income directly
  • Did not control for race/ethnicity
  • Did not assess for other contributors to the

income achievement gap

  • Next step: Does an improvement in social and

emotional competence result in improvements in academic achievement?

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Questions?

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Thank You!

Paul LeBuffe Director, Center for Resilient Children plebuffe@devereux.org Jennifer Fleming Robitaille Research Associate, Center for Resilient Children jflemin2@devereux.org

www.CenterForResilientChildren.org