IL PBIS Network Tier 2/3 Training Process

National PBIS Leadership Forum Session A1 – 10am

Building Trainer Competency for Secondary/Tertiary Systems

Lucille Eber Ed.D

Statewide Director, IL PBIS Network www.pbisillinois.org

October 27, 2011

Context for Building Trainer Competencies

1. Systems

a) Continuum of Courses, Skill Sets, Competencies b) ToT, Technical Assistance, Coaching

2. Data

a) System Tools: Tracking, Systems Response, BAT, ISSET,WIT b) c) Outcome Data: SWIS/CICO, SIMEO, LRE ‘Teaching/Learning’ Examples

3. Practices

a) b) c) d) Discovery Learning Diversified Instruction Facilitate activity-based training Follow-up TA and case consultation to ‘correct’

Levels of Trainer Competencies

 Learning  Content Fluent  Co-Trainer  Trainer

Trainer Level: Learning

 Is in the process of learning about this curriculum area.

Trainer Level: Content Fluent

 has participated in TOTs on current curriculum in this content area;  provides effective technical assistance to coaches and teams in this content area, by seeking support from other trainers and co trainers.

Trainer Level: Co-Trainer

 has used the tools with two or more coaches or teams;  is comfortable with all content  has the endorsement of a Training level staff member that they can train the systems, data/tools, practices of this content area.

Trainer Level: Trainer

 Fully understands the current curriculum in this content area, concepts, and tools and has used them with two or more teams;  engaged in action planning and produced outcomes with this content;  has exemplar samples of the completed content from teams;  can write a data story on the content,  can train the curriculum solo.

Tier 2/3 Features that Impact Trainer Competencies

 Connected & Layered Systems/Data/Practices/ Across Tiers  Full Continuum of Interventions  Separate Multi-tiered Teaming Functions  Emphasis on Role of Administrators  Need for District Level System Structures  Repositioning Specialized Services Staff  Change in existing systems (Sp.Ed)

Ensuring Capacity at All 3 Tiers

Begin assessment and development of secondary and tertiary tiers sooner (at start-up of universal)  Assess resources and current practices (specialized services)  Review current outcomes of students with higher level needs  Position personnel to guide changes in practice  Assess current teaming structures and identify changes needed  Begin planning and training with select personnel

SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ~5% ~15% Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students

A Response to Intervention (RtI) Application for Behavior

Tier 1/Universal

School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems

ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc.

Tier 2/ Secondary

Check-in/ Check-out Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc.

Tier 3/ Tertiary

Social/Academic Instructional Groups Individualized Check In/Check-Out, Groups & Mentoring (ex. CnC) Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/ Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP) Complex FBA/BIP

SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T

Wraparound

Universal Team

Plans SW & Class-wide supports Necessary Teaming Functions in a 3-Tiered System of Support

Secondary Systems Team

Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness

Problem Solving Team

Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time

Tertiary Systems Team

Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness

Universal Support CICO SAIG Group w. individual feature Brief FBA/BIP

Sept. 1, 2009

Brief FBA/ BIP Complex FBA/BIP WRAP

Universal Team

Plans SW & Class-wide supports Necessary Teaming Functions and Evaluation Tools in a 3-Tiered System of Support

Secondary Systems Team

Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness

Problem Solving Team

Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time

Tertiary Systems Team

Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness BOQ Universal Screening Decision Rules for Access SWIS

Sept. 1, 2009

BAT ISSET

Tracking Tool Reverse RFA SRT

CICO SWIS/ ISIS

Behavior Pathway FACTS ISIS BAT ISSET ISIS SRT

Home/School/C ommunity Ed Info Tool

WIT SIMEO

IL PBIS Network Tier 2/3 Trainer of Trainers (TOT)

• • • Framework for providing TOT with diversified group of experienced PBIS implementers: What’s the same for you?

What’s new to you?

What’s more detailed information for you?

Tier 2/3 TOT Structure

 The designated “group leader” for each activity is to provide a 10-12 minute response to the scenario provided.

 The other group members are to listen, ask questions, and comment after the “leader” finishes their response.

 The assigned recorder for each group captures the big ideas discussed/presented and records additional questions/answers generated by group. Recorder also is timekeeper.

Tier 2/3 TOT Structure (cont)

 Following the small group activity, a 10-15 minute presentation on the Secondary System Team and Process will be provided by the TOT Facilitators.

 Then all participants will individually address the following question:  What would you change/modify about your group presentation and/or how you’ve presented/taught this material in the past? All write their reflections on the back of this sheet for 2 minutes and than group members will share their responses in their small group.

Scenario for Activity 1

You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked?

1.

What does the Secondary Systems Team and process look like?

2.

What does the Secondary Systems Team do at their meetings?

Follow up Questions?

1.

2.

3.

When does this team actually talk about interventions for individual kids?

Our social worker already does a “lunch bunch” and an anger management group? Can we keep those? Are we supposed to talk about those groups too?

Other follow-up questions from team members?

Teaming at Tier 2

• • Secondary Systems Planning ‘conversation’  Monitors effectiveness of CICO, S/AIG, Mentoring, and Brief FBA/BIP supports  Review data in aggregate to make decisions on improvements to the interventions themselves  Students are NOT discussed Problem Solving Team (‘conversation’)  Develops plans for one student at a time  Every school has this type of meeting  Teachers and family are typically invited

• • • Secondary Systems Planning Team Meeting Agenda Number of youth in CICO ( record on TT )?  Number of youth responding (record on TT)?

 * Send Reverse Request for Assistance youth not responding to teachers of all Number of new youth potentially entering intervention (share # of RFAs, Universal Screening info and/or youth who met the data-based decision-rule cut offs for Secondary support)?

Repeat for S/AIG, Mentoring & Brief FBA/BIP

If less than 70% of youth are responding to any of the interventions, the Secondary Systems team should review the integrity of the intervention and make adjustments as needed.

Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool

• • • • Structured to follow 6 levels/types of interventions from Secondary through Tertiary Increases accountability  Schools have to count # of kids in interventions  Data-based decision-rules are necessary (Identify, Progress-monitor, Exit)  Must define ‘response’ to each intervention type/level  Shows % of kids who responded to each intervention …the tool assesses the success rate, or effectiveness of the interventions themselves Connects each level of intervention to the next level

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions Tracking Tool: Examples of Data-based Decision-rules for Defining Response

Responding to CICO:

Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had no new ODRs.

Responding to Social/Academic instructional groups:

had no new ODRs.

Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has

Responding to Simple Tier 2 with Individualized Features (i.e. CNC):

Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had no new ODRs.

Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions:

no new ODRs.

Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had

Responding to Complex Function-based Interventions:

and has had no new ODRs.

Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks

Responding to Wraparound Plans

Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had no new ODRs.

•

Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups

Selection into groups should be based on youths’ reaction to life circumstance not existence of life circumstances (ex. fighting with peers, not family divorce) • Goals for improvement should be common same group (ex. use your words) across youth in • Data should measure if skills are being USED in generalized settings (ex. classroom, not in counseling session) • Stakeholders (teachers, family etc.) should have input into success of intervention (ex. Daily Progress Report)

Critical Features

 Includes structured prompts for ‘what to do’ in relevant situations (transference and generalization)  Results in student receiving positive feedback from staff  Includes a school-home communication exchange system at least weekly

Critical Features

 Linked directly to school-wide expectations and/or academic goals  Continuously available for student participation  Can be implemented within 3 school days of determination that the student should receive the intervention

Scenario for Activity 2

You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked:

1.

2.

3.

Are we supposed to have a Tertiary Systems Planning Team meeting also?

What is supposed to happen at this meeting?

Who is supposed to be there when we do Tertiary Systems Planning?

Follow up Questions:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Is the individual team for the student different for complex fba/bip and wraparound?

How is the individual team different than an IEP team?

Aren’t those people on the Tertiary Systems Planning Team the same ones that would be on the individual child team?

Other follow-up questions from team members?

Teaming at Tier 3

• • Tertiary Systems Planning ‘conversation’  Monitors effectiveness of Complex FBA/BIP & Wraparound plans  Review data in aggregate to make decisions on improvements to the interventions themselves  Students are NOT discussed Individual Student Teams 

FBA/BIP Team per student



Wraparound Team per student

Systems-Response Tool

“Finding” Students in Need of Tertiary Supports • • Records the “system’s response” to youth behavior/circumstance Administrators and team members need to find the #s of youth that meet each criteria  Using the tool IS engaging in a ‘systems-reflection’  Prevents the hiding or mis-labeling of youth (ex. “We don’t have any kids that need Wraparound”)

Scenario for Activity 3

You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked:

1.

What are some common mistakes coaches should watch for and “pre-correct” for as teams develop function-based BIPs using the Competing Behavior Pathway?

Follow up Questions:

1.

2.

What exactly does setting event mean?

The problem behavior and replacement behavior have to meet the same function. How can that happen?

3.

4.

Can’t we just do a BIP with a plan for consequences?

Other follow-up questions from team members?

Common Mistakes Seen in Behavior Intervention Plans

• • • • Becoming ‘immobilized’ by setting events beyond the control of the school, ex. student does not take medication at home, what is the setting event at school? What is something the school can identify and impact? Skipping the replacement behavior : Must have a alternative or replacement behavior that student is taught, practiced, reinforced Not enough teaching strategies and opportunities Putting all the “eggs in one ‘consequence’ basket”, ex. If you’re good all week, you can have a soda on Friday

Other Common Mistakes…

• The problem behavior is not operationally defined: observable, countable, measurable: must be able to see, count, and measure behavior. Aggressive versus hits other peers during unstructured time on a daily basis • There is more than one function: non example, obtain peer attention and avoid doing work • There need to be at least one strategy in at least 3 areas (Antecedent, Behavior, and Consequence)

Common Mistakes on the BIP

• • • Need to make sure there is: A strategy for preventing problem behavior A strategy for minimizing reinforcement of problem behavior A strategy for reinforcing the use of desired/alternative behavior

Scenario for Activity 4

You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked?

1.

How do we know if were supposed to do complex fba/bip or wraparound?

Follow up Questions?

1.

2.

So what is the difference between big need and function?

How do I go about assessing/determining what a student (and/or family)’s “ big needs” are?

Deciding Which Tertiary Level Intervention is Most Appropriate • • Complex FBA/BIP (T200): Brief FBA/BIP was not successful • Wraparound (T300+): Youth with multiple needs across home, school, community & life domains AND NONE of Wraparound criteria are present • Youth at-risk for change of placement • The adults in youth’s life are not well) effectively engaged adults not getting along in comprehensive planning (i.e.

•

Function

The purpose/reason for demonstrating a specific type of behavior within a specific context/routine.

•

Big Need

The underlying reason preventing successful experiences/interactions in multiple settings/contexts/routines • • Specific behaviors have been strengthened by consistent reinforcement.

• When a big quality of life need is unmet, it impacts perception/judgment, often resulting in chronic problem behavior.

• Family voice is not necessary to identify function of behavior in the school setting.

Once Function is correctly identified, putting a plan in place can produce rapid behavior change. This can be accomplished in a single meeting.

• • Family voice is necessary to identify the Big Need for the school setting.

Once Big Need is identified, it takes a while to achieve and involves action planning across multiple life domains. Meeting the big need always involves multiple Child & Family Team meetings.

•

Function

Function is identified through structured interviews focusing on the problem behavior, antecedents, consequences, and setting events • Focus is on developing function based support plan (replacement behavior, antecedent, consequence, and setting event supports).

• When achieved, situations improve for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher). •

Big Need

Big needs are identified through open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools with those engaged with the youth on a regular basis.

• Big Need statements motivate a family to participate on the team (know we are working on something ‘bigger’ than specific behaviors).

• If met, the need will improve quality of life for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher).

Big Need: “Andy needs to feel like he belongs at school” • • School Behaviors: Aggressive with peers, excessive absences/tardies, history of academic failure Other indicators: Family frequently relocated, lack of home school communication, community support needs

Starting with FBA would not have been an effective approach—why?

 Discussing problem behaviors would not have motivated family to participate on team.

 Probably not the first time schools have approached family in this manner (“let’s talk about behavior”)  Open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools helped engage family  Bigger needs to work on to improve quality of life for youth and family

Other Techniques for Building Trainer Competency at Tier 2/3

 Share ‘Lessons Learned’  Facilitate ‘Difficult Conversations’  Ex. Of Old Approach-New Approach  Use of Data  Reflection Questions/Activities  Quick Self-assessment Activities  Developing Learning/Teaching Examples  Supervision/TA, Quarterly Reports,  Advanced Learning Community

Examples of these Techniques from IL Tier 2/3 Curriculum used with

 Trainers  TA Facilitators  Coaches  Administrators  District/Community Teams  Building Teams

Some “Big Picture” Challenges

 Low intensity, low fidelity interventions for behavior/emotional needs  Habitual use of restrictive settings (and poor outcomes) for youth with disabilities  High rate of undiagnosed MH problems (stigma, lack of knowledge, etc)  Changing the routines of ineffective practices (systems) that are “familiar” to systems

Examples of Ineffective Secondary/Tertiary Structures

 Referrals to Sp. Ed. seen as the “intervention”  FBA seen as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention  Interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect  (ex: student sent for insight based counseling at point of misbehavior)

Integrating mental health into RTI in Schools

Old Approach

 • • • • Each school works out their own plan with Mental Health (MH) agency; A MH counselor is housed in a school building 1 day a week to “see” students; No data to decide on or monitor interventions; “Hoping” that interventions are working; but not sure.

New Approach

• • • • District has a plan for integrating MH at all buildings (based on community data as well as school data); MH person participates in teams at all 3 tiers; MH person leads small groups based on data; MH person co-facilitates FBA/BIP or wrap individual teams for students.

What’s New in Wraparound?

 Skill set specificity  Focus on intervention design/effectiveness  Integration with school-wide PBS  Phases to guide implementation/supervision  Data-based decision-making  Integrity/fidelity assessment (WIT)  Tools to guide teams:   Home School Community Education Information Tool

Tertiary Demos

Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases Simple Secondary Interventions

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

36 5 5 1

Aug to Nov 2006 2-5 ODRs 6+ ODRs Aug to Nov 2007 CICO*

*CICO = Check in, Check Out

Students with IEPs Spending more than 80% of School Day in General Education Setting 50.5

50 49.5

49 48.5

49.3

50.32

State Target Ratio District Ratio

Students with IEPs Served in Separate Placements 10 4 2 8 6 0 9.01

122 4.91

102 7.48

4.58

FY07 FY08 Students w/IEPs in separate placements District Ratio State Target 130 120 110 100 90

Administrators Need to…

 Know what the practices look like when implemented with fidelity;  Be aware of data at all three tiers; help decide what needs to change;  Be active/visible on teams;  Apply high-level problem-solving skills troubleshooting systems level issues;  Be “hands on” with at least the first few tertiary plans.

Dealing with the Tough Issues

 Adult response to problem behavior.

 Adults need to model being respectful in their communications with students around behavior.  non-examples that need correcting?

 School personnel should not get to choose NOT to give students evidenced based interventions.

Behavioral and Academic Interventions at All Tiers A Response to Intervention Model

Academic Systems

Tertiary Interventions ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ Secondary Interventions ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ 5-10% 1-5% 1-5% 5-10%

Behavioral Systems

Tertiary Interventions __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ Secondary Interventions ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ Universal Interventions __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ 80-90% 80-90% Universal Interventions __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________

Behavioral and Academic Data at All Tiers A Response to Intervention Model

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Tertiary Data ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ Secondary Data ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ 5-10% 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% Tertiary Data __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ Secondary Data ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ Universal Data __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ 80-90% 80-90% Universal Data __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________

Quick Assessment of Student Access to Intervention

 Total enrollment?

 Number of students on CICO?

 Percent of total?

Quick Assessment of Current Teaming Structures?

 How many students did you discuss in your SST or TAT last year?

 How many of the students brought up and discussed at the team accessed interventions that had documented success?

Quick Assessment of Student Access to Intervention

 Total enrollment of your school?

 Number of students on complex function-based or wraparound plans?

 Percent of total population of the school?

Remember: No Data? No intervention!

Reflection

• How can the multi-tiered teaming model in your schools/districts become more efficient and effective?

Reflection

• How will you know if integrated partnerships are successful at a building level? What will it “look” like?

• At a district level?

Taking Tier 3 TOT to Next/ Higher Level

Practice with EE Data

 Share sets of district Data from state and district reports  Have small groups review data and develop questions to pose at a DLT

Overrepresentation of Students with IEPs by Ethnicity

2011 Ethnicity Breakdown American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Black or African American Hispani c White Multi Racial Total District - All Students (%) 0.5

District - Students w/ IEPs (%) 0.4

8.1

7 49 33 2.0

100.0

5.0

13 45.7

34 3 100.0

Black/African American Students with IEPs over-represented 7%

5c Data Trends: National, state and District

Decrease in Ratio Reflects Positive Change in Indicator

National Average State Target State Actual District Actuals

2006 3.7% 5.24% 5.87% 8.92% 2007 2008 2009 2010 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 4.91% 5.84% 7.99% 4.58% 5.93% 7.54% 4.25% 5.72% 7.05% 3.90% 5.96% 7.13% 2011 3.90% 5.94% 6.44%

These data represent findings for the "resident school" or student's home school.

District ‘x’ 5C Data

(most restrictive placements) Students by Ethnicity (n=295 students)

District ‘x’ 5C Data

(most restrictive placements) by Primary Disability (n=295 students)

District ‘x’ 5C Data

(most restrictive placements) Year Placed 82% placed within last 3 years

District ‘x’ 5C Data

(most restrictive placements) Age of Students When First Placed in 5c (n=161 students)

LRE Data Trends at the High School Level

  Drop out rates exacerbate the issue  Significantly higher use of restrictive placements of students with disabilities in most restrictive settings • Over 20% in some high schools Students with any behavioral/emotional component to disability more likely to be placed and/or drop out  ….and lots more are NOT identified with a disability

We Know the Practices that Work…

 Proactive, strength-based; “set youth up” to experience success  High rates of consistent, supported instruction; teach/practice/reinforce  Predictable and consistent environments  Know unique “why?” for each student’s problem behavior  Contextual fit: Strategic use of natural supports, and settings  Careful monitoring of data over time with ongoing revisions to guide incremental improvements in quality of life

We Know the System Features Needed to Support the Effective Practices…

• • • A Team unique to each individual child & family  Blend the family/natural supports with the school representatives who know the child best A defined Meeting Process  Meet frequently and use data  Develop, implement, review range of interventions Facilitator Role   Bringing team together Blending perspectives; guiding consensus  Systematic use of data (strengths and needs)

•

Activity A: Building Fluency with (slightly) Improved Tools

Scavenger Hunt in tools to find what is new and improved • Develop an activity at your table to teach your External Coaches about the changes • • •

Activity B: Building Fluency

Go to corner for topic that you think your teams would struggle most with new messages • Clarification in CICO system set up • SAIG • Mentoring • Individualized CICO Share WHY (identify problem) Brainstorm strategies/messages to address

Activity C: FBA/BIP and Tools

• Pick a corner based on your strength/interest • Setting Event • Antecedent • Problem Behavior • Maintaining Consequence/Function Come up with 5 creative ways to teach your choice OR what you still need to know/learn

Activity D: Universal Screening

• Pick a corner based on your comfort level with helping a district begin Universal Screening, • 1-need help, • 2-could muddle through, • 3-have a district who I have helped, • 4-feel confident in assisting a district begin Universal Screening List your questions if you are a 1 or 2 and suggestions if you are a 3 or 4 Report out from each corner

• •

Activity F: RENEW

What do you like from the Example shared?

How can you encourage district leaders, social workers, building principals, etc. to make the commitment to Wrap/RENEW?

• • 4 corners idea: Pick a corner based on which area is the biggest reason why Wrap/RENEW does not happen (family engagement, committed facilitators, systems issues at district or building, too hard, etc.) Brainstorm ideas to work through the roadblock