“Take a Number” Intermediate/senior high school with 880 students reported over 5,100 office discipline referrals in one academic year.
Download ReportTranscript “Take a Number” Intermediate/senior high school with 880 students reported over 5,100 office discipline referrals in one academic year.
“Take a Number” Intermediate/senior high school with 880 students reported over 5,100 office discipline referrals in one academic year. Nearly 2/3 of students had received at least 1 office discipline referral. Administrative Impact 5,100 referrals (odr) @ 15 min/odr = 76,500 min = 1,275 hrs admin time @ 8 hr/day 159 days Instructional Impact 5,100 referrals (odr) @ 45 min/odr = 229,500 min = 3,825 hrs instruction @ 7 hr/day = 546 days Give Priority to Effective Practices Less Effective More Effective Label Student Invest in School-Wide Exclude Student Teach & Reinf Soc Sk Blame Family Actively Supervise & Prevent Punish Student Assign Restitution Individualization based on Competence Require Apology Consider Culture & Context Fixsen & Blase, 2009 PRACTICE “Making a turn” Effective Not Effective IMPLEMENTATION Effective Maximum Student Benefits Not Effective SWPBS Theoretical Foundations Behaviorism ABA PBS SWPBS aka PBIS SWPBS (aka PBIS/RtI) is Framework for enhancing adoption & implementation of Continuum of evidencebased interventions to achieve Academically & behaviorally important outcomes for All students IMPLEMENTATION W/ FIDELITY CONTINUUM OF CONTINUOUS EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRESS INTERVENTIONS MONITORING UNIVERSAL SCREENING RtI DATA-BASED DECISION MAKING & PROBLEM SOLVING CONTENT EXPERTISE & FLUENCY TEAM-BASED IMPLEMENTATION “Multi-Tiered Systems of Support”…. Prevention Logic for All Redesign of teaching environments…not students Prevent Decrease worsening & Eliminate reduce developmen triggers & t of new intensity of maintainers problem of problem existing problem behaviors behaviors behaviors Add triggers Teach, & monitor, & maintainers acknowledge prosocial of prosocial behavior behavior Biglan, 1995; Mayer, 1995; Walker et al., 1996 “Early Triangle” Walker, Knitzer, Reid, et al., CDC (Walker et al., 1995, p. 201) Prevention Logic • Reduce # new • Reduce intensity of existing CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT FEW ~5% ~15% SOME Primary Prevention: School-/ClassroomWide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ALL ~80% of Students Horner, Lewis, Sugai, Todd, Walker…1995 Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior Intensive Targeted Universal Few Some All Dec 7, 2007 Continuum of Support for ALL Math Intensive Science Targeted Tech Continuum of Support for ALL “Theora” Spanish Reading Writing Soc skills Universal Soc Studies Basketball Dec 7, 2007 Label behavior…not people Intensive Anger man. Prob Sol. Continuum of Support: “Molcom” Targeted Acc. Fdbk Ind. play Adult rel. Self-assess Attend. Universal Coop play Peer interac Align behavioral Dec 7, 2007supports ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS TERTIARYPREVENTION PREVENTION TERTIARY •• Function-based support •• Wraparound •• Person-centered planning •• •• SECONDARY SECONDARY PREVENTION PREVENTION •• Check in/out •• Targeted social skills instruction •• Peer-based supports •• Social skills club •• PRIMARY PRIMARY PREVENTION PREVENTION •• Teach SW expectations •• Proactive SW discipline •• Positive reinforcement •• Effective instruction •• Parent engagement •• Proportion of Students Meeting State Academic EOG Reading Standard Bob Algozzine NC Positive Behavior Support Initiative 100 95 90 85 80 75 Schools w/ Low ODRs & High Academic Outcomes Reading Linear (Reading) 70 rxy = -.44 (n = 36) 65 60 55 50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 ODRs 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Office Discipline Referrals per 100 Students PBIS in North Carolina Responsiveness to Intervention Academic Systems Intensive, Individual Interventions •Individual Students •Assessment-based •High Intensity Circa 1996 1-5% 5-10% Targeted Group Interventions •Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response Universal Interventions •All students •Preventive, proactive Behavioral Systems 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 Academic-Behavior Connection Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 13, 3-16. Burke, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., & Sugai, G. (2003). The efficacy of function-based interventions for students with learning disabilities who exhibit escape-maintained problem behavior: Preliminary results from a single case study. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26, 15-25. McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 146-154. McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., and Braun, D. H. (2008). Reading skills and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education, 42, 131-147. Nelson, J. R., Johnson, A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53-62. Wang, C., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Rethinking the relationship between reading and behavior in early elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 100-109. RCT & Group Design PBIS Studies Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a grouprandomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), 100-115 Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The impact of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462-473. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133-148. Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26. Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (in press). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics. Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J., (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133-145. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), 1-14. Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (in press). The impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS) on bullying and peer rejection: A randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. # Schools Involved in SWPBIS INCOMPLETE (Aug 3 2012) 17,779 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 00 01 02 03 04 OSEP PBIS Center Aug 2012 05 06 07 08 09 2010 2011 2012 12.4 - Mean Percentage Students (2010-11 Reg Ed) (Majors Only) Students 0 or 1 Students 2 to 5 2% 5% 7% 4% 7% 12% 15% 10% 91% 83% 78% 86% 100% 90% Students 6+ 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% PreK-K N= Elementary 2979 Middle High PreK-8 889 390 254 PreK-12 Others 12.5 - Mean Percentage ODRs (2010-11 Reg Ed) (Majors Only) Students 0 or 1 Students 2 to 5 Students 6+ 100% 33% 42% 75% 81% 41% 39% 38% 39% 25% 19% 17% 21% 90% 44% 40% 80% 70% 83% 79% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% PreK-K N= Elementary 2979 % of Students 9% Middle High PreK-8 889 390 254 17% 22% 14% PreK-12 Others Guide to Working Smarter If we do IT, what 2 things can we stop doing? Does IT align with our most important student outcomes? Does IT have high probability of delivering expected outcomes? Do we have capacity to implement IT w/ sustainable/durable fidelity? Integrated PBIS Response to Bullying Bullying Requirements PBIS features Bullying Coordinator Coach/Team Leader School Climate Preventive Tier I Data Systems SWIS Event Reporting Continuous SWIS Response Team Leadership Team School & Community School & Family Staff Prof Dev Local Behavior Expertise Evid-base Practices RCT & SSR Research CT AntiBullying Law Public Act 11232 SERC April 2012 SERC 1. Specify/define need Data-based Decision Making Data used to….. 2. Select right evidencebased solution 3. Monitor implementation fidelity 4. Monitor progress 5. Improve implementation Supporting Social Competence & Academic Achievement OUTCOMES Supporting Decision Making Supporting Staff Behavior PRACTICES Supporting Student Behavior Vincent, Randall, Cartledge, Tobin, & Swain-Bradway 2011; Sugai, O’Keeffe, & Fallon, in press x2 Supporting Staff Behavior Supporting Social CULTURALLY Competence & EQUITABLE Academic Achievement OUTCOMES CULTURALLY VALID CULTURALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE PRACTICES CULTURALLY Supporting Student Behavior RELEVANT Supporting Decision Making “Students w/ disabilities are almost 2x as likely to be suspended from school as nondisabled students, w/ the highest rates among black children w/ disabilities.” NYTimes, M. Rich Aug 7 2012 • 13% w/ v. 7% w/o • 1 in 4 black K-12 students High suspension correlated w/ • Low achievement • Dropout • Juvenile incarceration Dan Losen & Jonathan Gillespie Center for Civil Rights Remedies at UCLA >1 Susp. 1 Year • • • • 1 in 6 black 1 in 13 Amer Indian 1 in 14 Latinos 1 in 20 Whites Not correlated w/ race of staff Cultural/Context Considerations Start w/ effective, efficient, & relevant, doable Basic “Logic” Maximum Student Outcomes PRACTICES Implementation Fidelity Prepare & support implementation Training + Coaching + Evaluation Improve “Fit” Where are you in implementation process? Adapted from Fixsen & Blase, 2005 EXPLORATION & ADOPTION INSTALLATION • We think we know what we need, so we ordered 3 month free trial (evidence-based) • Let’s make sure we’re ready to implement (capacity infrastructure) INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION • Let’s give it a try & evaluate (demonstration) FULL IMPLEMENTATION • That worked, let’s do it for real (investment) SUSTAINABILITY & CONTINUOUS REGENERATION • Let’s make it our way of doing business (institutionalized use) SWPBS Practices Classroom Non-classroom Student • Smallest # • Evidence-based Family • Biggest, durable effect SWPBS Practices Classroom Non-classroom Student Family SCHOOL-WIDE CLASSROOM 1.1. Leadership team 1.All school-wide 2.Behavior purpose statement 3.Set of positive expectations & behaviors 4.Procedures for teaching SW & classroom-wide expected behavior 5.Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected behavior EVIDENCEBASED INTERVENTION PRACTICES 6.Continuum of procedures for discouraging rule violations INDIVIDUAL STUDENT 2.Function-based behavior support planning 3.Team- & data-based decision making 4.Comprehensive person-centered planning & wraparound processes 5.Targeted social skills & self-management instruction 6. Individualized instructional & curricular accommodations 3.Positively stated expectations posted, taught, reviewed, prompted, & supervised. 4.Maximum engagement through high rates of opportunities to respond, delivery of evidencebased instructional curriculum & practices 5.Continuum of strategies to acknowledge displays of appropriate behavior. 6.Continuum of strategies for responding to inappropriate behavior. 7.Procedures for on-going data-based monitoring & evaluation 1.Behavioral competence at school & district levels 2.Maximum structure & predictability in routines & environment NONCLASSROOM 1.Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged FAMILY ENGAGEMENT 1.Continuum of positive behavior support for all families 2.Frequent, regular positive contacts, 2.Active supervision by all staff (Scan, communications, & acknowledgements move, interact) 3.Formal & active participation & involvement as 3.Precorrections & reminders equal partner 4.Positive reinforcement 4.Access to system of integrated school & community resources School-wide 1. Leadership team 2. Behavior purpose statement 3. Set of positive expectations & behaviors 4. Procedures for teaching SW & classroom-wide expected behavior 5. Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected behavior 6. Continuum of procedures for discouraging rule violations 7. Procedures for on-going data-based monitoring & evaluation Expectations Teaching Matrix SETTING All Settings Hallways Playgrounds Cafeteria Library/ Compute r Lab Study, read, compute. Sit in one spot. Watch for your stop. Assembly Bus Respect Ourselves Be on task. Give your best effort. Be prepared. Walk. Have a plan. Eat all your food. Select healthy foods. Respect Others Be kind. Hands/feet to self. Help/share with others. Use normal voice volume. Walk to right. Play safe. Include others. Share equipment. Practice good table manners Whisper. Return books. Listen/watch. Use appropriate applause. Use a quiet voice. Stay in your seat. Respect Property Recycle. Clean up after self. Pick up litter. Maintain physical space. Use equipment properly. Put litter in garbage can. Replace trays & utensils. Clean up eating area. Push in chairs. Treat books carefully. Pick up. Treat chairs appropriately. Wipe your feet. Sit appropriately.