Including ALL Students & Positive School Culture Tim Lewis & George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS September 18, 2008 www.pbis.org [email protected] [email protected].
Download ReportTranscript Including ALL Students & Positive School Culture Tim Lewis & George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS September 18, 2008 www.pbis.org [email protected] [email protected].
Including ALL Students & Positive School Culture Tim Lewis & George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS September 18, 2008 www.pbis.org [email protected] [email protected] School-wide Positive Behavior Support 2 Parts G: Principles & Features T: Practices & Data “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 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? 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 What is School-wide Positive Behavior Support (PBIS)? 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 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 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 A 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 Implementation Levels Student Classroom School District State Country PBS Systems Implementation Logic PBS Implementation Blueprint www.pbis.org Funding Visibility Political Support Leadership Team Active & Integrated Coordination Training Coaching Evaluation Local School Teams/Demonstrations SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION & DURABLE RESULTS THROUGH CONTINUOUS REGENERATION Continuous Self-Assessment Relevance Valued Outcomes Priority Efficacy Fidelity Practice Implementation Effective Practices Tim: More Data & Examples Tim Impact of SW-PBS: Implications For Educators Concerned with Children and Youth At-risk and Those with Disabilities Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri Starting Point • We can’t “make” students learn or behave • We can create environments to increase the likelihood students learn and behave • Environments that increase the likelihood are guided by a core curriculum and implemented with consistency and fidelity Universal School-Wide Features • Clearly define expected behaviors (Rules) • Procedures for teaching & practicing expected behaviors • Procedures for encouraging expected behaviors • Procedures for discouraging problem behaviors • Procedures for record-keeping and decision making CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ~5% ~15 % Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with HighSecondary Risk Behavior Prevention: Primary Prevention: School-/ClassroomWide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students Specialized Group Systems for Students with AtRisk Behavior Benton I am…. All Settings Classroo m Hallways Cafeteria Bathrooms Playground Assemblies Safe •Keep bodies calm in line •Report any problems •Ask permission to leave any setting Maintain personal space Walk Stay to the right on stairs Banisters are for hands •Walk •Push in chairs •Place trash in trash can Wash hands with soap and water Keep water in the sink One person per stall Use equipment for intended purpose Wood chips are for the ground Participate in school approved games only Stay in approved areas Keep body to self •Walk •Enter and exit gym in an orderly manner Respectful •Treat others the way you want to be treated •Be an active listener •Follow adult direction(s) •Use polite language •Help keep the school orderly Be honest Take care of yourself Walk quietly so others can continue learning Eat only your food Use a peaceful voice Allow for privacy of others Clean up after self •Line up at first signal •Invite others who want to join in •Enter and exit building peacefully •Share materials •Use polite language Be an active listener Applaud appropriately to show appreciation A Learner •Be an active participant •Give full effort •Be a team player •Do your job •Be a risk taker •Be prepared •Make good choices Return to class promptly •Use proper manners •Leave when adult excuses •Follow bathroom procedures •Return to class promptly •Be a problem solver •Learn new games and activities •Raise your hand to share •Keep comments and questions on topic FRM S Total Office Discipline Referrals 3000 2500 Total ODRs 2000 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 INSTRUCTIONAL HOURS GAINED Projected (50% ) vs. Actual (Aug-Dec 2000) 5000 4500 4000 3500 HOURS 3000 2500 2000 4290 HOURS 1500 2145 HOURS 1000 1671 ADDITIONAL Instructional Hours 78% 500 474 HOURS 0 Total Instructional H ours Lost 9900 Projected Instructional H ours Lost Actual Instructional H ours Lost Self-contained Special Education Building - St. Louis • Enrollment 200 • 50% free and reduced lunch • Ages 13 and up • Serves 8 component districts • • • • • Physically Impaired Autism Language Impaired Hearing Impaired Multiple/ Severe Disabilities • Emotional/ Behavioral Disorder Self Contained School • Supported by PBS Coach • Prior to implementing school-wide system, Identified 33 students (17%) with chronic behavior teachers felt would require intensive individualized plans Reported Results • Reduction in inappropriate behavior (verbal aggression, sleeping in class, off task, disruption) • Increased prosocial behaviors and task completion • Post universal systems, only 5 students (2%) required intensive individualized support plans Prevention & Supports For Identified and At-risk Students Social Behavior Does Implementation of SW-PBS improve individual interventions? • Illinois “profile” analysis. – Assessment of intervention effectiveness Very Low, Low, Med, High, Very High 0 1 2 3 4 – School-wide – Individual Intervention Profile Effectiveness Scores (Illinois Schools 02-03) Mean Effectiveness Scores 4 3 t = 11.11 (335) p< .0001 N=223 N=169 2 t = 2.30 (27) p < .03 N=38 N=17 1 Partial 0 N=169 Full N=22 3 School-wide Parti al Full N=38 N=1Individual 7 Mental Health Outcomes • Does School-wide SW-PBS fit within a comprehensive mental health model of prevention and intervention? Minimizing and reducing “risk factors” by building “protective factors” Correlation of Risk Variables with EBS Survey Score N = 13 Middle Schools Sprague, Walker, Sowards, Van Bloem, Eberhardt & Marshall, 2001 Pearson R 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 Free & R Acd Fail Mobiltiy A&D Crm ASB Total Series1 0.017896 -0.119001 0.115955 -0.291545 -0.513794 -0.376016 Risk Variables A&D = Alcohol and Drug; ABS = Anti-social Behavior Scale Impact on Moving Students to More Restrictive Settings Columbia Public Schools • Elementary Schools who implement SW-PBS referred students to alternative/special school at lower rates compared to schools who were not implementing SW-PBS (r = -0.4306, p < 0.01) • Elementary Schools who implemented SW-PBS have less recidivism to alternative settings once students returned to home-school Prevention & Supports For Identified and At-risk Students Achievement BALLWIN ACHIEVEMENT PBS 800 70 760 700 60 58.2 50 47.4 500 40 405 400 32.5 31 30 302 300 185 200 20 10 100 0 0 2000 2001 2002 YEAR Office Referrals Proficient or Advanced on MAP 2003 MAP PE RC E NTI LE N UMBE R OF RE FE RR ALS 600 Illinois 02-03 Mean Proportion of Students Meeting ISAT Mean Percentage of 3rd graders meeting ISAT Reading Standard Reading Standard t test (df 119) p < .0001 70.00% 62.19% 60.00% 50.00% 46.60% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% PBIS NOT in place N = 69 PBIS IN place N = 52 Small Group and Individual Interventions Supporting Students At-Risk and those with Disabilities Within Their Home School CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ~5% ~15 % Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with HighSecondary Risk Behavior Prevention: Primary Prevention: School-/ClassroomWide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students Specialized Group Systems for Students with AtRisk Behavior Small Group/Targeted Essential Features • Part of the continuum – must link to school-wide PBS system • Efficient and effective way to identify students • Intervention matched to presenting problem but not highly individualized STUD EN TS RECEIVIN G A "BEHAVIOR PLAN " EIGHT OR MOREREFERRALS 1999/2000 vs. 2000/2001 AVERAGE PERCEN T D ECLIN E IN REFERRALS 20 18 50% % NUMBER OF REF ERRALS 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 A* B C D E F* G H I J* K STUDENT NAM E * ST UDEN T L E FT SC HOO L DIS TRICT BEF ORE THE END O F TH E AC ADEM IC Y EAR REFERRALS 99-00 REFERRALS 00-01 L M N O P Table 1. Pre- and Posttest Scores for Subjects on Dependent Variable (SSRS-T) SSRS-T Social Skills Non PBS PBS Pre Mean 72.8 (56-86) 78.3 (70-84) Post Mean 80 (61-103) 90 (77-125) .11 .04* P Value SSRS-T Problem Behavior Non PBS PBS Pre Mean 123.6 (110-138) 124.8 (113-133) Post Mean 121.4 (102-139) 124.7 (115-138) .50 .97 P Value * Significance at the .05 P Value Intensive / Individual Essential Features • • • • Linked to school-wide system When small group not sufficient When problem intense and chronic Driven by Functional Behavioral Assessment Process (FBA to PBS) • Conduct functional behavioral assessment • Create plan based on functional assessment outcome • Develop infra-structure to support behavior change (school environment must change) Structural Analysis Setting Factors Assessment Tool • Level 1: Classroom Set-up and Structure • Level 2: Context Specific Activities • Level 3: Instructional Delivery and Tasks • Level 4: Student Behavior Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Johnson, N., & Trussell, R. (2004). Toward a structural assessment: Analyzing the merits of an assessment tool for a student with E/BD. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 25-40. 100 90 Mean Percen t of Teach er Behavior 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Baseline High Structure Level 1 Materials Accessiblity Level 1 & 2 Rules Visible Level 1, 2 & 3 Assistance Consistent Follow-Up Answering Consistent Field Elementary School SW-PBS and RtI with Literacy Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success Academic 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 Behavioral Systems 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 Field Elementary School • High Diversity – School has 290 students; 50% minority; 20% English Language Learners; 13% special education • Instructional leader turnover • Poverty – 79% of students qualify for free and reduced lunches • Highly transient population Field Elementary School + Teachers and Staff committed to the increasing academic and social success of all students + A committed Principal who supported faculty in their efforts to change the way the taught to improve children’s lives Field Elementary School • Academic Standing – Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) • 5% of all students scored proficient in 2005, according to the Missouri Assessment Program. Breakdown by ethnicity: – 0% African American – 18% Caucasian –0% Students with disabilities – 0% English Language Learners – 7% Free/Reduced Priced Lunch Field Elementary School • Literacy • In 2004–05, 44% students required intensive support for reading and writing • Social Behavior • In 2003-04 Averaging 10.4 discipline referrals per day Positive Behavior Supports Impact To 1.6 per From 10.4 per day day MU College of Education — 140 years of discovery, teaching and learning Impact • Literacy • In 2004–05, 44% students required intensive support for reading and writing. This number shrunk to 31% in 2007–08. • Shifted to a structured, explicit, research-based core literacy program with three tiers: – One: Benchmark – Two: Strategic Intervention – Three: Intensive Intervention • Monitor progress in fall, winter and spring Impact • Improved Academic Standing – Annual Yearly Progress • In 2007, 27% of Field’s students scored proficient in 2007 (up from 5%). • African American: 0% improved to 16% • Caucasian: 18% improved to 57% • Students with disabilities: 0% improved to 25% • English Language Learners: 0% improved to 27% Implications & Conclusion SW-PBS allows educators to build environments that increase the likelihood of student academic and social behavior success through a systemic and supportive process On school reform… Kauffman states “…attempts to reform education will make little difference until reformers understand that schools must exist as much for teachers as for student. Put another way, schools will be successful in nurturing the intellectual, social, and moral development of children only to the extent that they also nurture such development of teachers.” (1993, p. 7).