Positive Supports for Behavior and Discipline Resource Database

This article describes the efforts of one state to address unacceptably high rates of child care expulsion. The primary policy initiative involved the funding of a center to develop model sites, a state-level planning team, ongoing practitioner training, and certification of coaches and trainers all built around the Pyramid Model. Results showed showed a dramatic reduction in expulsion rates and a corollary increase in providers’ teaching of prosocial skills to children with challenging behavior.

Building and sustaining high-quality early intervention and preschool special education systems is a complex and ongoing process for state agencies. The purpose of the ECTA System Framework is to guide state Part C and Section 619 Coordinators and their staff in 1) evaluating their current systems; 2)identifying potential areas for improvement, and; 3) developing more effective, efficient systems that support implementation of evidence-based practices.

This webpage is a compilation of resources on expulsion and suspension in early childhood. The resources include federal guidance; resources from national centers and associations; and practice resources.

The Statewide Implementation Guide is a process for implementing evidence-based practices statewide. The guide is based on results and evidence from the multi-year Pyramid Model implementation initiative in 25 states. The guide includes tools, materials, and examples derived from the Pyramid Model (NCPMI's) and ECTA's DEC Recommended Practices implementation technical assistance.

This interative tool creates easy-to-read charts and graphs of State-level discipline removals, including in-school and out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, and unilateral removals, using IDEA Section 618 data states submit to OSEP.

Since 1968, the U.S. Department of Education has conducted the Civil Rights Data Collection to collect data on key education and civil rights issues in our nation's public schools, including discipline practices. State, local and school-level data are available to explore and analyze discipline data across schools, districts or States.

Every year, OSERS collects data from state educational agencies as required by IDEA section 618, including data related to discipline practices. These data report key aspects of disciplinary removals at the State level, disaggregated by a variety of demographic criteria.

This suite of tools includes the IDEA Data Quality: Outlier Analyses Tool and the Outlier Analyses: Step-by-Step Guide. State personnel responsible for the IDEA 618 and 616 data can use the guide and the Excel tool to conduct outlier analyses with their local data.

States and LEAs must report five types of disciplinary removals for children and youth with disabilities. The EDFacts IDEA Discipline Data Infographic visualizes the information from six IDEA Discipline data EDFacts file specification documents in an interactive infographic that outlines the discipline data for children and youth with disabilities ages 3 through 21 that states must include in their annual submission of EDFacts files FS005, FS006, FS007, FS088, FS143, and FS144. Data states report in these files include counts of children and youth with disabilities with in-school and out-of-school suspensions and expulsions; length of and reason for disciplinary removal; and count of disciplinary removals due to drugs, weapons, or serious bodily injury.

These Edit Check and Data Display Tools help states as they prepare their IDEA Section 618 data submissions. The tools identify potential business rule errors or errors in subtotals or totals prior to submitting the data to OSEP. Relevant tools include SEA EDFacts Edit Check and Data Display Tool - IDEA Discipline, LEA EDFacts Edit Check and Data Display Tool - IDEA Discipline, and 618 Data Pre-submission Edit Check Tool - Part B ​Discipline.

This toolkit contains protocol templates that states can use to document all state-level IDEA data collection and reporting procedures and activities. Completing protocols for all data collections can help states establish a well-managed process for data collection, analysis, and reporting. For discipline data, see the following components: 618 Data Collection Procotocols, Discipline; and 616 SPP/APR Indicator Protocols, Indicators 4A and 4B.

This interactive resource (also available as a PDF) can help states develop and report on authentic and broad stakeholder engagement as required in the FFY 2020–2025 SPP/APR. It provides 10 key questions states should be asking themselves, with detailed options to consider, as they build their stakeholder engagement plans and prepare for describing their engagement activities in their SPPs/APRs.

High-quality data are timely, accurate, and complete. In addition, they are usable, accessible, and secure. Educators and representatives at the local, state, and federal levels use high-quality early intervention and special education data to inform their decisions as they work to meet the needs of children and students with disabilities and their families. Use this interactive PDF to learn more about the different components of high-quality data.

This customizable Excel workbook states can use for documenting, recording, and communicating existing business rules or data quality validation checks they perform during the collection and validation of IDEA Part B data. This protocol provides a format for gathering information about existing business rules in one location and is an effective tool for communication with both internal and external stakeholders.

States can use the Organizer Template for Part B SPP/APR Target Setting to briefly document information for consideration when setting new SPP/APR targets for all indicators in the FFYs 2020–25 SPP/APR collection. States can supplement this overview template with the Indicator Organizer for Part B SPP/APR Stakeholder Involvement and Target Setting, which is designed to capture more detailed information on stakeholder involvement in setting targets for individual SPP/APR indicators. Both resources can help states conceptualize indicator target setting and how they will need to solicit and document stakeholder input when establishing indicator targets.