Transcript SWPBS & RtI for All George Sugai University of Connecticut OSEP Center on PBIS September 24, 2008 www.pbis.org www.cber.org [email protected].

SWPBS & RtI for All
George Sugai
University of Connecticut
OSEP Center on PBIS
September 24, 2008
www.pbis.org
www.cber.org
[email protected]
Organizer
What is SWPBS?
What is RtI?
What are outcomes?
BIG IDEA
Successful individual student
behavior support is linked to
host environments or school
climates that are effective,
efficient, relevant, durable, &
scalable
(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
Evaluation Criteria
Effective
• Desired Outcomes?
Efficient
• Doable?
Relevant
• Contextual & Cultural?
Durable
• Lasting?
Scalable
• Transportable?
What is
School-wide Positive
Behavior Support
(PBIS)?
SWPBS is for EVERYONE by….
Improving
classroom &
school climate
Integrating
Decreasing
academic &
reactive
behavior
management
initiatives
Improving
support for
Maximizing
academic
students w/
behavior
achievement
disorders
SWPBS Conceptual Foundations
Behaviorism
ABA
Laws of Behavior
Applied Behavioral Technology
PBS
Social Validity
SWPBS
All Students
Integrated
Elements
Supporting Social Competence &
Academic Achievement
OUTCOMES
Supporting
Decision
Making
Supporting
Staff Behavior
PRACTICES
Supporting
Student Behavior
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
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
“Train & Hope”
WAIT for
New
Problem
Expect, But
HOPE for
Implementation
Hire EXPERT
to Train
Practice
REACT to
Problem
Behavior
Select &
ADD
Practice
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Team
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
SWPBS
Practices
Classroom
Non-classroom
• Smallest #
• Evidence-based
Family
• Biggest, durable effect
Student
CLASSROOM
SCHOOL-WIDE
1.
Classroom-wide positive expectations taught
& encouraged
2.
Teaching classroom routines & cues taught &
encouraged
3.
Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adultstudent interaction
4.
Active supervision
5. Continuum of procedures for discouraging
inappropriate behavior
5.
Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior
errors
6. Procedures for on-going monitoring & evaluation
6.
Frequent precorrections for chronic errors
7.
Effective academic instruction & curriculum
1. Common purpose & approach to discipline
2. Clear set of positive expectations & behaviors
INTERVENTION
3. Procedures for teaching expected behavior
PRACTICES
4. Continuum of procedures for encouraging
expected behavior
INDIVIDUAL STUDENT
1.
Behavioral competence at school & district
levels
2.
Function-based behavior support planning
3.
Team- & data-based decision making
4.
Comprehensive person-centered planning &
wraparound processes
5.
6.
Targeted social skills & self-management
instruction
Individualized instructional & curricular
accommodations
FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
NONCLASSROOM
1.
2.
Positive expectations & routines
taught & encouraged
Active supervision by all staff
(Scan, move, interact)
3.
Precorrections & reminders
4.
Positive reinforcement
1.
Continuum of positive behavior support for all
families
2.
Frequent, regular positive contacts,
communications, & acknowledgements
3.
Formal & active participation & involvement
as equal partner
4.
Access to system of integrated school &
community resources
ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS
~5%
~15%
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
~80% of Students
••
••
••
••
••
••
TERTIARY
TERTIARY PREVENTION
PREVENTION
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
Where’d “triangle”
come from….a
PBIS perspective?
“Triangle” ?’s
• Why triangle?
• Why not pyramid or octagon?
• Why not 12 tiers? 2 tiers?
• What’s it got to do w/ education?
• Where’d those %’s come from?
Prevention Logic for All
Walker et al., 1996
Decrease
development
of new
problem
behaviors
Redesign
learning &
Prevent
teaching
Teach,
worsening of environments
monitor, &
to eliminate acknowledge
existing
problem
prosocial
triggers &
behaviors
maintainers of
behavior
problem
behaviors
Public Health & Disease Prevention
Kutash et al., 2006; Larson, 1994
• Tertiary (FEW)
– Reduce complications,
intensity, severity of
current cases
• Secondary
(SOME)
– Reduce current cases
of problem behavior
• Primary (ALL)
– Reduce new cases of
problem behavior
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
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
What is RtI?
SWPBS detour
Implementation
Fidelity
Comprehensive
screening
Early &
timely
decision
making
Databased
decision
making
Support for
nonresponders
Need
for
better
Instructional
accountability
& justification
Assessment
-instruction
alignment
Resource
& time
use
Response to Intervention
IMPLEMENTATION
W/ FIDELITY
UNIVERSAL
SCREENING
RtI
CONTINUUM OF
EVIDENCE-BASED
INTERVENTIONS
DATA-BASED
DECISION MAKING
STUDENT
& PROBLEM
PERFORMANCE
SOLVING
CONTINUOUS
PROGRESS
MONITORING
Curricular &
instructional
decisions
Families &
community
interactions
Implementation
accountability
Measurement,
assessment, &
evaluation
Special
education
functioning
General
education
functioning
RtI: Good “IDEiA” Policy
Approach or framework for redesigning
& establishing teaching & learning
environments that are effective,
efficient, relevant, & durable for all
students, families & educators
• NOT program, curriculum, strategy,
intervention
• NOT limited to special education
• NOT new
Quotable Fixsen
• “Policy is
– Allocation of limited resources for
unlimited needs”
– Opportunity, not guarantee, for good
action”
• “Training does not predict action”
– “Manualized treatments have created
overly rigid & rapid applications”
Precision
Teaching
CBM
Early
Screening &
Intervention
Applied
Behavior
Analysis
Behavioral &
Instructional
Consultation
Prereferral
Interventions
Diagnostic
Prescriptive
Teaching
Teacher
Assistance
Teaming
Designing School-Wide Systems
for Student Success
Academic Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
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
Intensive
Targeted
Universal
Few
Some
All
Dec 7, 2007
RTI
Continuum of
Support for
ALL
Questions to Ponder
• What is “scientifically/evidence-based”
intervention/practice?
• How do we measure & ensure “fidelity of
implementation?”
• How do we determine “non-responsiveness?”
• Can we affect “teacher practice?”
• Do we have motivation to increase efficiency
of “systems” organization?
•
???
Who does
SWPBS look
like?
Few positive SW expectations defined,
taught, & encouraged
Employee Entrance at Tulsa
Downtown Doubletree
Expectations & behavioral skills are taught
& recognized in natural context
SETTING
TEACHING
MATRIX
Expectations
All
Settings
Hallways
Playgrounds
Cafeteria
Library/
Computer
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.
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.
Respect
Property
Acknowledge & Recognize
Data & More
Examples
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
Mean ODRs per 100 students per school day
Illinois and Hawaii Elementary Schools 2003-04 (No Minors)
Mean ODR/100/Day
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
.85
.64
0.2 Schools doing SW-PBS well report a 25% lower
rate of ODRs
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%
Schools doing SW-PBS well report associated in
10%
increases reading achievement
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
Schools doing SW-PBS well report associated in
increases reading achievement
0.6
0.4
0.2
NN= =23
23
0
Not Meeting SET
NN==8
8
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
6+ ODR
2-5 ODR
0-1 ODR
SWPBS schools are more preventive
0
Met SET (N = 23)
Not Met SET (N =12)
July 2, 2008
% Students
3
100%
8
9
15
16
8
90%
80%
70%
60%
6+
50%
2-5
89
77
40%
0-1
74
30%
20%
10%
0%
K-6
6-9
9-12
School Level
ODR rates vary by level
% Major ODRs
100%
90%
33
45
80%
44
70%
60%
6+
50%
42
2-5
0-1
40%
38
38
17
18
30%
20%
26
10%
0%
K-6
6-9
School Level
July 2, 2008
9-12
Bethel School District Office Discipline Referrals
1000
900
800
Number of Referrals
700
600
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
500
2004-05
2005-06
400
2006-07
2007-08
300
200
100
0
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
Grade Level
7
8
9
10
11
12