Transcript Document

Building Positive School
Climate through SW PBS
George Sugai
OSEP Center on PBIS
University of Connecticut
November 15, 2006
www.pbis.org
[email protected]
Purpose
To provide introductory overview of
School-wide Positive Behavior
Support (SW-PBS)
• Rationale & research
MORE
• “Big
ideas”
• Dec
6 “Expanding
Horizons” Pre-Conf.,
Cromwell
• Implementation features, &
• www.pbis.org
• Outcomes
“141 Days!”
Intermediate/senior high school
with 880 students reported over
5,100 office discipline referrals in
one academic year. Nearly 2/3 of
students have received at least
one office discipline referral.
5,100 referrals =
76,500 min @15 min =
1,275 hrs =
159 days @ 8 hrs
Challenge #1
Rose, L. C., & Gallup. A. M. (2005). 37th annual Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public
schools. Kappan, September, 41-59.
TOP FOUR 2005
#1 SPOT
1. Lack of financial
support
• After 2000 lack of
financial support
2. Overcrowded
schools
• 1991-2000 drug use
3. Lack of discipline
& control
4. Drug use
• Before 1991 lack of
discipline
Challenge #2
Competing, Inter-related National Goals
• Improve literacy, math, geography, science, etc.
• Make schools safe, caring, & focused on teaching &
learning
• Improve student character & citizenship
• Eliminate bullying
• Prevent drug use
• Prepare for postsecondary education
• Provide a free & appropriate education for all
• Prepare viable workforce
• Affect rates of high risk, antisocial behavior
• Leave no child behind
• Etc….
Challenge #3
Challenge #4
Better Why’s
• Improve/redesign teaching & learning
environments for all students & close
achievement gap
• Reduce use of ineffective reactive
management
• Enhance individualized support for
students with high-risk behavior
• Enhance intervention decision making
SW: All Kids, Staff, Settings, Parents
“Pupil achievements & behavior can be
influenced (for the better or worse) by
overall characteristics of school….this
means focus on features promoting good
functioning at classroom, departmental or
whole school level.”
“Improving overall level may be expected to
have benefits at the extremes so long as
favorable school features do actually
impinge on children with special needs.”
Rutter & Maughan, 2002, pp. 470-471
2001 Surgeon General’s Report on
Youth Violence: Recommendations
• Establish “intolerant attitude toward
deviance”
– Break up antisocial networks…change social
context
– Improve parent effectiveness
• Increase “commitment to school”
– Increase academic success
– Create positive school climates
• Teach & encourage individual skills &
competence
http://rtckids.fmhi.usf.edu
Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Lynn, N.
(2006). School-based mental health: An
empirical guide for decision makers. Tampa,
FL: University of South Florida. Louis De la
Parte Florida Mental Health Institute,
Department of Child & Family Studies,
Research & Training Center for Children’s
Mental Health.
SWPBS Logic!
Successful teaching & learning
environments are effective,
efficient, relevant, & durable
– Outcome-based
– Data-led decision making
– Evidence-based practices
– Systems support for accurate & sustained
implementation
Main Message
STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT
Good Teaching
Behavior Management
Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity
Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems
Supporting Social Competence &
Academic Achievement
4 PBS
Elements
OUTCOMES
Supporting
Decision
Making
Supporting
Staff Behavior
PRACTICES
Supporting
Student Behavior
CONTINUUM OF
SCHOOL-WIDE
INSTRUCTIONAL &
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
~5%
~15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
Designing School-Wide Systems
for Student Success
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
1-5%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
5-10%
80-90%
1-5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
“Train & Hope”
WAIT for
New
Problem
Expect, But
HOPE for
Implementation
Hire EXPERT
to Train
Practice
REACT to
Problem
Behavior
Select &
ADD
Practice
What does SWPBS look like?
• >80% of students can tell you what is expected of
them & give behavioral example because they have
been taught, actively supervised, practiced, &
acknowledged.
• Positive adult-to-student interactions exceed negative
• Function based behavior support is foundation for
addressing problem behavior.
• Data- & team-based action planning &
implementation are operating.
• Administrators are active participants.
• Full continuum of behavior support is available to all
students
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS:
“Getting Started”
Team
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
Behavioral
Capacity
Priority &
Status
Data-based
Decision
Making
Representation
Team
Administrator
Communications
Working Smarter
Initiative,
Project,
Committee
Attendance
Committee
Character
Education
Safety
Committee
School Spirit
Committee
Discipline
Committee
DARE
Committee
EBS Work
Group
Purpose
Outcome
Target
Group
Staff
Involved
SIP/SID/e
tc
Team
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
Top 3 SchoolWide
Initiatives
Coaching &
Facilitation
3-4 Year
Commitment
Agreements &
Supports
Dedicated
Resources
& Time
3-Tiered
Prevention
Logic
Administrative
Participation
Team
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
Self-Assessment
Efficient
Systems of Data
Management
Team-based
Decision
Making
SWIS
Data-based
Action Plan
EvidenceBased
Practices
Existing
Discipline
Data
Multiple
Systems
School-wide Positive
Behavior Support
Systems
Classroom
Setting Systems
School-wide
Systems
School-wide Systems
1. Common purpose & approach to discipline
2. Clear set of positive expectations & behaviors
3. Procedures for teaching expected behavior
4. Continuum of procedures for encouraging
expected behavior
5. Continuum of procedures for discouraging
inappropriate behavior
6. Procedures for on-going monitoring &
evaluation
Classroom
Setting Systems
• Classroom-wide positive expectations taught
& encouraged
• Teaching classroom routines & cues taught &
encouraged
• Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adultstudent interaction
• Active supervision
• Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior
errors
• Frequent precorrections for chronic errors
• Effective academic instruction & curriculum
Nonclassroom
Setting Systems
• Positive expectations & routines
taught & encouraged
• Active supervision by all staff
– Scan, move, interact
• Precorrections & reminders
• Positive reinforcement
Individual Student
Systems
• Behavioral competence at school & district
levels
• Function-based behavior support planning
• Team- & data-based decision making
• Comprehensive person-centered planning &
wraparound processes
• Targeted social skills & self-management
instruction
• Individualized instructional & curricular
accommodations
Team
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
Team Managed
Staff
Acknowledgements
Effective
Practices
Implementation
Continuous
Monitoring
Administrator
Participation
Staff Training
& Support
Team
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
Team-based
Decision Making &
Planning
Relevant &
Measurable
Indicators
Efficient
Input, Storage, &
Retrieval
Evaluation
Continuous
Monitoring
Effective
Visual Displays
Regular
Review
FRMS Total Office Discipline Referrals
Sustained Impact
Pre
3000
Total ODRs
2500
2000
Post
1500
1000
500
0
94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06
Academic Years
ODR Admin. Benefit
Springfield MS, MD
2001-2002
2277
2002-2003
1322
= 955 42% improvement
= 14,325 min. @15 min.
= 238.75 hrs
= 40 days Admin. time
ODR Instruc. Benefit
Springfield MS, MD
2001-2002
2277
2002-2003
1322
= 955 42% improvement
= 42,975 min. @ 45 min.
= 716.25 hrs
= 119 days Instruc. time
“She can read!”
With minutes reclaimed from
improvements in proactive SW
discipline, elementary school
invests in improving schoolwide literacy.
Result: >85% of students in 3rd
grade are reading at/above
grade level.
PBS associated w/ academic & behavior
improvements: School Example
-55%
-85%
Lovejoy Elem in Alton, IL
4J School District
Change from 97-98 to 01-02
Elem With School-wide PBS
20
Eugene, Oregon
15
10
5
0
-5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Schools
Change from 97-98 to 01-02
Elem Without School-wide PBS
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
1
2
3
4
Schools
5
6
Change in the
percentage of
students meeting
the state standard
in reading at grade
3 from 97-98 to 0102 for schools
using PBIS all four
years and those
that did not.
Mean ODRs per 100 students per school day
Illinois and Hawaii Elementary Schools 2003-04 (No Minors)
Schools using SW-PBS report a 25% lower rate of ODRs
Mean ODR/100/Day
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
.85
.64
0.2
0
N = 87
N = 53
Met SET 80/80
Did Not Meet SET
Illinois 02-03 Mean Proportion of Students Meeting ISAT Reading
Mean Percentage of 3rd graders
meeting ISAT Reading Standard
Standard
t test (df 119) p < .0001
70%
62.19%
60%
50%
46.60%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
PBIS NOT in place N = 69
PBIS IN place N = 52
Proportion of Students Meeting
Reading Standards
Proportion of 3rd Graders who meet or exceed state
reading standards (ISAT) in Illinois schools 02-03
t = 9.20; df = 27 p < .0001
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
N =23
N = 23
NN==88
0
Not Meeting SET
Meeting SET
Central Illinois Elem, Middle Schools
Triangle Summary 03-04
1
05%
Mean Proportion of
Students
11%
20%
0.8
22%
0.6
84%
58%
0.4
0.2
0
Met SET (N = 23)
Not Met SET (N =12)
6+ ODR
2-5 ODR
0-1 ODR
North Illinois Schools (Elem, Middle)
Triangle Summary 03-04
Mean Proportion of
Students
1
0.8
04%
08%
14%
17%
0.6
88%
69%
0.4
0.2
0
Met SET N = 28
Not Met SET N = 11
6+ ODR
2-5 ODR
0-1 ODR
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)
Mean Proportion of Students
0-1
'2-5
'6+
100%
90%
3%
8%
10%
11%
16%
18%
89%
74%
71%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
K=6 (N = 1010)
6-9 (N = 312)
9-12 (N = 104)
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)
Percentage of ODRs by Student Group
'0-1
'2-5
'6+
100%
90%
32%
48%
45%
43%
37%
40%
25%
15%
15%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
K-6 (N = 1010)
6-9 (N = 312)
9-12 (N = 104)
CT Contact Information
Sarah Barzee ([email protected])
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.pbis.org