Special Education and the Social Dynamics of Aggression in Rural Schools

1
Special Education and the Social Dynamics of
Aggression in Rural Schools

• Tom Farmer Abby Hoffman
• College of Education School of Education
• Pennsylvania State University University of
  North Carolina
• National Research Center on Rural Education
  Support

2
Collaborators

• Matt Irvin
• Dylan Robertson
• David Estell
• Man-Chi Leung
• Kim Dadisman
• Allen Murray
• Jana Thompson
• Amity Crowther
• Bryan Hutchins

3
Funding Support

• Centers for Disease Control and Injury Prevention
• Office of Special Education Programs
• Institute for Education Sciences
• Social Character Development Program
• National Research Center on Rural Education
  Support

4
Datasets

• Social Integration Study Chicago Rural NC
• 991 3rd 6th graders (516 G) 53 W 40 AA 7
  L
• Developmental Pathways of Rural African American
  Early Adolescents
• 406 5th and 6th graders followed throughg high
  school (244 G) 100 African American
• Project REAL Rural Appalachian Mountains
• 315 5th Graders (170 G) 95 White 5 African
  American
• Project BEST Rural Coastal Plains and
  Metropolitan Area in NC
• 622 5th graders (332 g) 55 European American,
  41 African American, 4 other
• Social Character Development SACD Rural NC
• 534 2nd Graders (289 G) 57 W 30 AA 10 L
  7 NA

5
Goals and Aims

• Examine the conceptual foundations of the social
  relations of rural special education students
• Summarize our research on classroom social
  dynamics
• Summarize our research on the bullying
  involvement of rural students with or at-risk of
  mild disabilities
• Discuss implications for social interventions to
  support students with mild disabilities in rural
  schools

6
Conceptual Foundations of the Social Relations of
Rural Special Education Students

• Dominant view in the special education literature
  is that students with mild disabilities have
  social skill deficits and are rejected by
  nondisabled peers
• Alternative view is that while some special
  education students are socially marginalized,
  there is considerable variability in their social
  competence and peer relations
• Some students with or at-risk of mild
  disabilities are well integrated into their
  classroom social structures, are members of
  popular peer groups, and have prominent social
  roles

7
Why the Confusion?

• Peer Rejection vs. Social Isolation
• --Peer rejection refers to how well students are
  liked
• --Social isolation refers to not associating
  with peers
• --Most rejected youth are members of peer groups
  
• Sociometric Popularity vs. Perceived Popularity
• --Sociometrically popular youth are well liked
  by peers
• --Perceived popular youth are viewed by peers as
  popular
• --Many perceived popular youth are not well
  liked
• Teachers views of peer relations tend to
  correspond with perceived popularity

8
Subtypes of Aggressive Youth

• There are two types of aggressive children and
  adolescents
• Tough teacher rated popular aggressive
• Troubled teacher rated unpopular aggressive

9
Characteristics of Tough and Troubled Boys
Interpersonal Competence Scale Teacher (ICS-T)
Ratings

• Tough (about 10-15 of boys)
• Factor ______
• Aggression
• Academic
• Popularity
• Affiliative
• Olympian
• Internalizing -

• Troubled (about 12-20 of boys)
• Factor ____
• Aggression
• Academic -
• Popularity -
• Affiliative --
• Olympian -
• Internalizing

10
Girls Aggressive Subtypes

• Typically there tends to be only one high
  aggressive cluster for girls and it is not
  associated with high popularity or social
  prominence (may be due to measures focusing on
  physical and not social aggression)
• The exceptions are the rural 2nd grade sample
  (the girl profiles for Tough and Troubled are
  similar to those generally found for boys) and
  the middle school rural African American girls
  (social aggression was measured)

11
Two Social Worlds of Aggression in School

• Peer relations of Tough and Troubled youth
  demarcate distinct social worlds of aggression in
  school
• --Consistent with common conceptions, Troubled
  children appear to be socially marginalized
• --However, Tough children appear to be socially
  prominent, well integrated into popular and
  socially central peer groups, and influential in
  the social structure even though they may not be
  well liked (viewed as cool by a broad range of
  peers)

12
Why Two Social Worlds of Aggression? Classroom
Social Dynamics

• As children and youth organize their social
  worlds there is a tendency for natural social
  dynamics that support conflict and aggression
  
• --Social Synchrony
• --Distinct peer groups (similarity,
  complementary)
• --Hierarchical social structures

13
Strategies Youth use to Promote their Social
positions and Control of Resources

• Prosocial
• Coercive
• --Physical aggression
• --Social aggression
• --Bullying
• The most prominent and influential students
  tend to use both prosocial and coercive
  strategies

14
Peer Relations of Youth Involved in Bullying

• Bullies
• Larger social networks, leaders of peer groups,
  disliked but socially prominent, unlikely to be
  victimized by others
• Bully/Victims
• Associate with other bully/victims, many
  troubled youth fit this category
• Victims
• Associate with marginalized peers, more likely
  to be neglected

15
Social Relations of Students with or at-risk of
High Incidence Disabilities

• Many youth with or at-risk of disabilities fit in
  Tough, Troubled, and non-aggressive high risk
  configurations
• More likely to associate with aggressive and
  unpopular peers
• More likely to be socially isolated (about 20)
• Tend to view positive peers very favorable except
  for aggressive students with or at-risk of
  disabilities who think Tough peers are cool

16
Bullying Involvement of Students with or at-risk
of High Incidence Disabilities

• Students with high incidence disabilities more
  likely to be perceived as being bullies by both
  teachers and peers
• Teachers tend to rate students with high
  incidence disabilities higher for being bullied
  by peers
• Students with high incidence disabilities who
  have aggressive and popular associates have more
  peer nominations for bullying than all others

17
Implications for Intervention Supporting the
Transition to Middle School in Appalachian Schools

• Project REAL
• Academic Engagement Enhancement
• Competence Enhancement Behavior Management
• Classroom Social Dynamics Management

18
Implications for Intervention Pilot Outcomes of
Project REAL

• Students sense of classroom belonging declined
  sharply between fall and spring in control
  schools, but remained stable and positive across
  the year in intervention schools
• Students positive ratings of classmates
  acceptance of academic effort and achievement
  declined in control schools but remained positive
  and stable across the school year in intervention
  schools
• At the end of the intervention year, students in
  intervention schools showed fewer teacher-rated
  aggressive behaviors compared to students in
  control schools
• Parallel analyses indicated that students in
  intervention, compared to control, schools rated
  their classrooms as less emotionally risky at the
  end of the school year

19
Implications for Intervention The Role of
Teachers in Classroom Social Dynamics

• While the context and mix of students
  contribute to whether aggression is associated
  with social prominence and whether
  popular-aggressive youth become dominant in the
  class, it appears that teachers play an important
  role
• --Teachers as an invisible hand in directing
  classroom social structures and social dynamics
  
• --Considerable variability in teachers ability
  to identify peer groups and social roles (e.g.,
  bullies, victims, leaders)
• --Teachers appear to have more accurate
  conceptions of girls groups and social roles as
  compared to the groups and social roles of boys

20
Implications for Interventions Supporting
Students with High Incidence Disabilities

• Universal Interventions are needed that focus on
  classroom social dynamics (i.e., creating
  contexts that reduce hierarchical social
  structures)
• Functional assessments for students with high
  incidence disabilities should center on the
  social functions and supports for their behavior
  
• There is a need to be cognizant of the different
  subtypes of youth with high incidence
  disabilities and to establish interventions that
  correspond with their social roles (i.e.,
  socially prominent, socially marginalized) and
  their peer affiliation patterns

21
Implications for Intervention Universal

• Intervention by teacher awareness
• --Classroom social hierarchies and social roles
• --Peer group affiliations and peer support
  processes
• --Differences between sociometric popularity,
  perceived popularity, and peer affiliation
  

22
Implications for Intervention Individualized

• Individualized social interventions for students
  with high incidence disabilities should be
  responsive to
• --Peer affiliations (i.e., popular peers,
  aggressive peers, marginalized, socially
  isolated)
• --Social roles (i.e., leader, bully,
  bully/victim, victim)
• --Interaction patterns (synchronous support
  peer reinforcement)

23
Issues in Training and Implementation to Support
Teachers

• Training Delivery
• --Inservice
• --Online support
• --Consultation
• Implementation
• --Fidelity
• --Maintenance
• --Individualization for students with high
  incidence disabilities and students at risk of
  being identified for special education services