Comprehensive Assessment of School Climate to Improve Safety in Maryland Middle Schools, 2015-2018 (ICPSR 37488)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to adapt for middle schools and assess the feasibility and acceptability of the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools (MDS3) model, test the efficacy of MDS3 for improving school safety and climate, problem behaviors, engagement, and achievement using a group randomized control trial in 40 middle schools, and measure the programmatic costs and benefits associated with implementation of the MDS3 model.

Study Design View help for Study Design

This study was conducted using a randomized controlled trial, where 40 schools were randomized to either intervention or a comparison condition. Both survey and observational data were collected from students, staff, and parents in each condition.

Sample View help for Sample

40 large public middle schools in one Mid-Atlantic state across 4 local education agencies/districts were selected. On average, these schools served 785 students, of whom about half were African American (32.68%) or Hispanic (20.41%). In these schools, an average of 42.18% of students qualified for and were receiving free and reduced-price meals. These schools had implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) for an average of 9.40 years at the start of the project. The average suspensions rate was 11.57% and achievement/proficiency rates were 80.33% for reading and 63.22% for math.

For the student surveys regarding school climate, schools were advised to collect data in at least 18 classrooms (i.e., 3 classrooms per grade level; 6th, 7th, and 8th). Principals were asked to have all staff members complete the surveys, and the surveys were shared with all parents in the school community.

The research team was responsible for all data observations and fidelity measures collected by the research team and all classroom and non-classroom environmental observations were collected for all schools. The observations in classrooms were to include a total of 18 classrooms as well, beginning with seeing all Language Arts teachers and then the observer selecting additional Math, Science, and Social Studies class periods to observe, until 18 classrooms were seen.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

Middle school students at 40 large public middle schools in Maryland, across 4 local education agencies/districts.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Variables in this study can be split up into four categories: observational, survey, and intervention report data.

The observational data is comprised of the ratings obtained by observers hired by the research team. Variables in this category of data contain a broad range of observations both inside and outside of the classroom: demographic data, reviews of teacher effectiveness, student engagement, peer to peer relations, and teacher-student communication.

Survey data was collected from students, staff, and parents to assess the overall school climate. Variables in these surveys include assessments of school policies and administrators, reviews of teachers and student, and overall school safety.

Intervention report data is made up of the reports of those implementing the various interventions in the schools. Variables in this data contain reviews of student-teacher relations, school policies, and the school's receptiveness to the intervention.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

This study was focused on whether there were school-level impacts on climate and safety, as measured through surveys, observations, and fidelity tools. Thus, the desired response rate was data for all 40 schools on each data source. Below are the response rates for each data type:

School Climate Survey data:

Baseline (2015): We received data from students at all schools (100%), from staff at 39/40 schools (97.5%), and from parents at 32/40 schools (80%);

Year 1 (2016): We received data from students in all 40 schools (100%) and are missing staff data from 1 school (39/40 or 97.5%) and data from parents at four schools (36/40; 90%);

Year 2 (2017): We are missing data from students and parents at two schools for a total of 38/40 schools (95%), but we have data from staff at all schools (100%);

Year 3 (2018): We have student data from 39/40 schools (97.5%), staff data from 38/40 schools (95%), and parent data from 34/40 schools (85%).

Observational data:

Baseline: We collected data at all schools, however at baseline (2015), there was a transmission error for data for the Assessing School Settings: Interactions of Students and Teachers (ASSIST) survey which resulted in:

Data for the classroom ASSIST from all schools, but at one school, we have just 8 out of the targeted 18 classrooms;

For the non-classroom ASSIST (which were collected concurrently), we lost data from 4 schools (i.e., 36/40 or 90%).

SAFeTy and SET/ISSET data were collected in all schools (40/40 or 100%)

Years 1-3: Data were collected from all 40 schools for all observational measures

Coach rated data:

We have data from coaches regarding all 20 intervention schools (100%) for coach fidelity (i.e., school visit logs) for all three years and multiple ratings of school engagement per year for all schools (100%).

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Assessing School Settings: Interactions of Students and Teachers (ASSIST; Rusby, Taylor, and Milchak, 2001)

School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET; Sugai et al., 2001)

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2022-01-27

Hide