Transcript Linking School-wide PBIS with Response to Intervention (RtI) Rob Horner University of Oregon Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) www.pbis.org www.uoecs.org.

Linking School-wide PBIS with
Response to Intervention (RtI)
Rob Horner
University of Oregon
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
www.pbis.org www.uoecs.org
Goals

Define Current status of School-wide
PBIS

Provide a model for linking/integrating
SWPBIS and RtI
Purpose

The purpose of SWPBIS is to make
schools more effective learning
environments for all students.
School-wide Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS)

The social culture of a
school matters.

A continuum of supports
that begins with the whole
school and extends to
intensive, wraparound
support for individual
students and their families.

Effective practices with the
systems needed for high
fidelity and sustainability

Multiple tiers of intensity
Number of Schools Implementing SWPBIS since 2000
Count of School Implementing SWPBIS by State
August, 2011
Illinois
12 States > 500
Schools
Texas
0
Wyoming
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Washington DC
Washington State
Virginia
Vermont
Utah*
Texas
0.7
Tennessee
South Dakota
South Carolina*
Rhode Island
Pennsylvania
Oregon*
Oklahoma
Ohio
North Dakota*
North Carolina*
New York
New Mexico
New Jersey*
New Hampshire
Nevada
Nebraska
Montana*
Missouri*
Mississippi
Minnesota
Michigan
Massachusetts
Maryland*
Maine
Louisiana*
Kentucky
Kansas*
Iowa*
Indiana
Illinois
Idaho
Hawaii
Georgia
Florida*
Delaware
Connecticut
Colorado*
California
Arkansas
Arizona
Alaska
Alabama
Proportion of School Implementing SWPBIS by State
August, 2011
1
0.9
0.8
Texas
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Randomized Controlled Trials Examining
PBIS
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering school climate through schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized
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 schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations
from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26.
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.
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.
Algozzine, R., Putnam, R., & Horner, R. (2012). Support for teaching students with learning disabilities
academic skills and social behaviors within a response-to-intervention model: Why it doesn’t
matter what comes first. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 9(1), 7-36.
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, 5362.
Wang, C., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Rethinking the relationship between reading and behavior in early
elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 100-109.
What is School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Support?

School-wide PBIS is:
◦ A systems framework for establishing the social culture and
behavioral supports needed for a school to be an effective learning
environment (e.g. academic and behavior) for all students.

Evidence-based features of SWPBIS
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Prevention
Define and teach positive social expectations
Acknowledge positive behavior
Arrange consistent consequences for problem behavior
Classroom linkage of behavioral and academic supports
On-going collection and use of data for decision-making
Continuum of intensive, individual intervention supports.
Implementation of the systems that support effective practices
Establishing a Social Culture
Common
Language
MEMBERSHIP
Common
Experience
Common
Vision/Values
No Gum
No Hats
No Backpacks
No Running
No Violence
No Disruption
eject violence
bey rules
top bullying
verybody “Stop It”
These banners are hanging in the commons area and in our
gymnasium.
A few positive SW Expectations
“Phoenix Experience”
Visible Reminders of Expectations are
Critical
20
SOAR
Respect
Achievement
Organization
Safe
Supporting Social Competence,
Academic Achievement and Safety
School-wide PBIS
OUTCOMES
Supporting
Student
Behavior
Supporting
Decision
Making
SYSTEMS
Supporting
Staff Behavior
SCHOOL-WIDE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
~5%
~15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
Classroom
Systems
Bully Prevention
Tx
~80% of Students
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
SCHOOL-WIDE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
27
School-Wide
Positive Behavior
Support
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~5%
~15%
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students with
High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students with
At-Risk Behavior
~80% of Students
27
Multi-tier Model
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
•Of longer duration
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
1-5%
80-90%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
1-5%
5-10%
80-90%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Dona Meinders, Silvia DeRuvo; WestEd, California Comprehensive Center
Examples of Behavior Supports
Intensive Intervention
•Individualized, functional
assessment based behavior
support plan
Universal Prevention
•Identify expectations
•Teach
•Monitor
•Acknowledge
•Correct
Targeted Intervention
•Check-in, Checkout
•Social skills training
•Mentoring
•Organizational skills
•Self-monitoring
Continuum of Supports
Academic
Continuum
PBIS
Is Integrated
Continuum
Mar 10 2010
Behavior
Continuum
Intensive
Targeted
Universal
George Sugai
Few
Some
All
RTI
Continuum of
Support for ALL
Tier III
For Approx 5% of Students
Core
+
Supplemental
+
Intensive Individual Instruction
…to achieve benchmarks
1.Where is the students performing
now?
2.Where do we want him to be?
3.How long do we have to get him
there?
4.What supports has he received?
5.What resources will move him at
that rate?
Tier III Effective if there is progress (i.e.,
gap closing) towards benchmark and/or
progress monitoring goals.
36 36
Dr. Laura Riffel
Positive Behavior Support
Universal
School-Wide Data Collection and Analyses
School-Wide Prevention Systems (rules, routines, arrangements)
Analyze
Student Data
Targeted
Interviews,
Questionnaires, etc.
Observations
and ABC Analysis
Group
Interventions
Simple Student
Interventions
Intensive
Multi-Disciplinary
Assessment & Analysis
Complex Individualized
Interventions
Team-Based Wraparound
Interventions
Dr.Terry Scott: Adapted from George Sugai, 1996
© Terrance M. Scott, 2001
Bethel’s Comprehensive Secondary Counseling
Program
Outcomes
Individualized
Targeted
Universal
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
•• School-wide Bully Prevention
Math
Remember that the multiple
tiers of support refer to our
SUPPORT not Students.
Avoid creating a new disability
labeling system.
Behavior
Health
Reading
Six Basic Recommendations for
Implementing PBIS

Never stop doing what already works

Always look for the smallest change that will
produce the largest effect
 Avoid defining a large number of goals
 Do a small number of things well
 Define what you will do with operational precision

Do not add something new without also
defining what you will stop doing to make the
addition possible.
Six Basic Recommendations for
Implementing PBIS

Collect and use data for decision-making
 Fidelity data: Are we doing what we said we would do?
 Impact Data: Are we benefiting students?

Adapt any initiative to make it “fit” your school
community, culture, context.





Families
Students
Faculty
Fiscal-political structure
Establish policy clarity before investing in
implementation
Michigan State Board of Education Positive Behavior Support Policy
The vision of the State Board of Education is to create learning environments that prepare
students to be successful citizens in the 21st century. The educational community must provide a
system that will support students’ efforts to manage their own behavior and assure academic
achievement. An effective behavior support system is a proactive, positive, skill-building approach
for the teaching and learning of successful student behavior. Positive behavior support systems
ensure effective strategies that promote pro-social behavior and respectful learning environments.
Research-based positive behavior support systems are appropriate for all students, regardless of
age. The principles of Universal Education reflect the beliefs that each person deserves and needs a
positive, concerned, accepting educational community that values diversity and provides a
comprehensive system of individual supports from birth to adulthood. A positive behavior support
policy incorporates the demonstration and teaching of positive, proactive social behaviors
throughout the school environment. A positive behavior support system is a data-based effort that
concentrates on adjusting the system that supports the student. Such a system is implemented by
collaborative, school-based teams using person-centered planning. School-wide expectations for
behavior are clearly stated, widely promoted, and frequently referenced. Both individual and schoolwide learning and behavior problems are assessed comprehensively. Functional assessment of
learning and behavior challenges is linked to an intervention that focuses on skill building. The
effectiveness of the selected intervention is evaluated and reviewed, leading to data-based revisions.
Positive interventions that support adaptive and pro-social behavior and build on the strengths of
the student lead to an improved learning environment. Students are offered a continuum of
methods that help them learn and maintain appropriate behavior and discourage violation of codes
of student conduct. In keeping with this vision, it is the policy of the State Board of Education that
each school district in Michigan implement a system of school-wide positive behavior support
strategies.
Adopted September 12, 2006
…it is the policy of the State Board of Education
that each school district in Michigan implement
a system of school-wide positive behavior
support strategies.
Using PBIS to Achieve
Quality, Equity and Efficiency

QUALITY: Using what works; Linking Academic and Behavior
Supports
◦
◦
◦
◦

EQUITY: Making schools work for all
◦
◦
◦
◦

North Carolina (valued outcomes)
Michigan (behavior and literacy supports)
Commitment to Fidelity Measures
Building functional logic/ theory/ practice (Sanford)
Scott Ross
Russ Skiba
Vincent, Cartledge, May & Tobin
Bully prevention
EFFICIENCY: Working Smarter: Building implementation science
into large scale adoption.
◦ Using teacher and student time better.
◦ Dean Fixsen/ Oregon Dept of Education
Time Cost of a
Discipline Referral
(Avg. 45 minutes per incident for student 30 min for Admin 15 min for Teacher)
1000
Referrals/yr
500 Hours
2000
Referrals/yr
1000 Hours
250 Hours
500 Hours
Student Time
750 Hours
1500 Hours
Totals
1500 Hours
3000 Hours
Administrator
Time
Teacher Time
T otal O ffic e D is c ipl ine R efer r al
Kennedy Middle School
1500
1200
900
600
300
0
Pre95-96
PBIS
Year 1
Year 2
96-97
97-98
School Years
Year 3
98-99
What does a reduction of 850 office referrals and 25
suspensions mean?
Kennedy Middle School

Savings in
Administrative time

Savings in Student
Instructional time



ODR = 15 min
Suspension = 45 min

ODR = 45 min
Suspension = 216 min


13,875 minutes
231 hours


43,650 minutes
728 hours

29, 8-hour days

121, 6-hour
school days
Linking SWPBIS and RTI

Continuum of Support Practices

Emphasis on “Foundation Supports” and
investment in prevention.

Emphasis on the organizational systems
needed to implement practices with fidelity
and durability.

Collection and use of data for decisionmaking
Early Intervention
ALIGNMENT
Literacy
Wraparound
Response to Intervention/Prevention
Linking SWPBIS and RtI
14 Core
Functions
Math
Family Support
Behavior Support
Student Outcomes
© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
Linking RTI and PBIS

1. Effective and Efficient
Foundation Practices
◦ Establishing a Universal
System of Support

Effective Curriculum

Unambiguous Instruction

Adequate intensity

Reward System

Error Correction System
Linking RTI and PBIS

2. Universal Screening

Collect information on all
students at least twice a year
◦ Nov

Feb
Use data for decision-making
 2 or more ODRs

SSBD is used in Illinois
◦ SSBD-Web available 2012
DIBELS Universal Screening
Tier III
1
0.9
0.8
Axis Title
Tier II Risk
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Tier I Risk
0.2
0.1
Risk
Literacy Risk
0.7
0
0
Tier I
0
0.2
1
Tier II
0.4
Other 2
0.6 3
Axis Title
Behavior Risk
4
0.8 5
Tier III Other1
6
8
1.2
Jennifer
Frank, Kent McIntosh, Seth May
12
Cumulative Mean ODRs
Cumulative Mean ODRs Per Month
for 325+ Elementary Schools 08-09
10
8
0-1
6
2-5
6+
4
2
0
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Linking RTI and PBIS

3. Continuum of Evidencebased Practices

Targeted interventions for
students “at risk”

Intensive, Individualized
interventions for students
with more significant needs

Early Intervention
Linking RTI and PBIS

4. Progress Monitoring

Collection of data on a
monthly, weekly, daily rate

Use of data for decisionmaking
Linking RTI and PBIS

5. Fidelity Monitoring

Assessing the extent to
which we are
implementing what we
claim to implement

Use of the data for
decision-making
Iowa Checklist 01-05, PK-6 % Fully & Partially Implemented
Team Checklist
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
Start Up Full Implementation
4
5
5
Start Up Part Implementation
5
6
6
7
03-Jun-05
08-Nov-04
7
08-Mar-05
03-Aug-04
01-Nov-03
01-Sep-03
6
01-Mar-04
07-Nov-03
5
06-Feb-04
11-Sep-03
05-Aug-03
05-Nov-03
21-Apr-03
4
01-Sep-03
31-Oct-02
28-Feb-03
12-Sep-02
24-Nov-04
3
01-Mar-05
12-Aug-04
02-Jun-05
22-Jan-04
2
01-Feb-05
23-Feb-04
05-Aug-03
05-Nov-03
0%
7
7
Team Checklist: Subscale Scores
Percentage of Total Points
Time 1
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
Team Checklist: Subscale Scores
Percentage of Total Points
Time 1
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Team Checklist: Subscale Scores
Percentage of Total Points
Time 1
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time 2
Team Checklist: Subscale Scores
Percentage of Total Points
Time 1
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time 2
Time 3
Team Checklist: Subscale Scores
Percentage of Total Points
Time 1
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
Your Turn:
What should team focus on ?
Team Implementation Checklist
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Your Turn:
What should team focus on ?
Team Implementation Checklist
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Your Turn:
What should team focus on ?
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time 1 versus Time 2
Demonstration School Exemplar
NCES ID:
Zenith, Winnemac
School Year
2009-10
Demonstration
District
NCES ID :
Number of
Responses
1
Feature
Date Collected
09/30/2009
Score (0, 1, 2)
Establish Commitment
1. Administrator's Support & Active Involvement.
2. Faculty/Staff Support.
1
1
Establish & Maintain Team
3. Team Established (Representative).
4. Team has regular meeting schedule, effective operating
procedures.
5. Audit is completed for efficient integration of team with
other teams/initiatives addressing behavior support.
1
2
0
Conduct Self-Assessment
6. Team completes the Team Implementation Checklist
(TIC).
7. Team summarizes existing school discipline data.
8. Team uses self-assessment information to build
implementation Action Plan (areas of immediate focus).
2
1
0
Action
Who/When
Demonstration School Exemplar
NCES ID:
Zenith, Winnemac
School Year
2011-12
Demonstration
District
NCES ID :
Number of
Responses
1
Feature
Date Collected
09/15/2011
Score (0, 1, 2)
Establish Commitment
1. Administrator's Support & Active Involvement.
2. Faculty/Staff Support.
2
2
Establish & Maintain Team
3. Team Established (Representative).
4. Team has regular meeting schedule, effective operating
procedures.
5. Audit is completed for efficient integration of team with
other teams/initiatives addressing behavior support.
1
2
0
Conduct Self-Assessment
6. Team completes the Team Implementation Checklist
(TIC).
7. Team summarizes existing school discipline data.
8. Team uses self-assessment information to build
implementation Action Plan (areas of immediate focus).
2
2
2
Action
Who/ When
Implications for Systems Change

1. District policy
 Clear statement of values, expectations, outcomes

2. Ability to conduct universal screening
and progress monitoring assessments
 District provides efficient options for universal
screening and progress monitoring measures

3. Recruitment and hiring
 Expectations defined in job announcements

4. Annual faculty orientation
Implications for Systems Change

5. Professional development
 Focused strategies for staff development in core
skills
 Always train teams not individuals
 Match training with access to coaching support

6. Coaching Capacity
 Training linked to on-site assistance to implement
Competent Implementation
OUTCOMES
(% of Participants who Demonstrate Knowledge, Demonstrate new
Skills in a Training Setting,
and Use new Skills in the Classroom)
Knowledge
Skill
Demonstration
Use in the
Classroom
Theory and
Discussion
10%
5%
0%
..+Demonstration in
Training
30%
…+ Practice &
Feedback in Training
60%
60%
5%
…+ Coaching in
Classroom
95%
95%
95%
TRAINING
COMPONENTS
20%
0%
Joyce and Showers, 2002
Successful Student Outcomes
Program/Initiative/Framework (e.g. RtI)
Performance Assessment
(Fidelity)
Coaching
Systems
Intervention
Training
Integrated &
Compensatory
Selection
Facilitative
Administration
Decision Support Data
System
Leadership
Continuing Ed
Adaptive
Technical
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
Stages of Implementation
Implementation occurs in stages:
Exploration
 Installation
 Initial Implementation
 Full Implementation
 Innovation
 Sustainability

Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005
2 – 4 Years
Visibility
Funding
Political
Support
Policy
Leadership Team
Active Coordination
Training
Coaching
Behavioral
Expertise
Evaluation
Local School/District Teams/Demonstrations
Scaling up School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports:
The Experiences of Seven States with Documented Success
Rob Horner, Don Kincaid George Sugai, Tim Lewis, Lucille Eber, Susan Barrett,
Celeste Rossetto Dickey, Mary Richter, Erin Sullivan, Cyndi Boezio, Nancy Johnson
Exploration
Leadership
Team
Funding
Visibility
Political
Support
Policy
Training
Coaching
Expertise
Evaluation
Demos
Installation
Initial Imp
Full Imp
Innovation
Sustainability
Exploration and
Adoption
Installation
Initial
Implementation
Full
Implementation
Innovation and
sustainability
Do you have a state
leadership team?
What were critical
issues that
confronted the
team as it began
to install systems
changes?
What were specific
activities the team
did to ensure
success of the initial
implementation
efforts?
Did the team
change personnel
or functioning as
the # of
schools/districts
increased?
What has the
Leadership team
done to insure
sustainability?
Leadership Team (coordination)
If you do, how was
your first leadership
team developed?
Who were
members?
Who supported/lead
the team through
the exploration
process?
Was any sort of selfassessment
completed (e.g. the
PBIS
Implementation
Blueprint
Assessment)?
What was the role
of State agency
personnel in the
exploration phase?
In what areas is
the State
“innovating”
and contributing
to the research
and practice of
PBIS (e.g. linking
PBIS with
literacy or
math)?
Descriptive Summary: Oregon
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Exploration
/ Installation /
Initial Imp
/Full Imp & Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Missouri
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Exploration
/
Installation
/Initial Imp
/ Full Imp & Innovate
Descriptive Summary: North Carolina
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
00-01
01-02
Exploration
02-03
/
03-04
Installation
04-05
05-06
/
06-07
Initial & Full Imp
07-08
08-09
/
09-10
Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Colorado
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
02-03
03-04
04-05
Exploration / Installation
05-06
/
06-07
07-08
Initial & Full Imp /
08-09
Innovate
09-10
10-11
Descriptive Summary: Florida
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
Exploration/ Installation/ Initial Imp /
05-06
Full Imp
06-07
07-08
/
08-09
Innovate
09-10
Descriptive Summary: Maryland
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
Exploration / Installation
2003
2004
/ Initial Imp /
2005
2006
Full Imp
2007
/
2008
Innovate
2009
2010
Descriptive Summary: Illinois
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
98-99
99-00
00-01
Exploration / Installation /
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
Initial Imp
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
/Full Imp & Innovate
10-11
Lessons Learned

Multiple approaches to achieving scaled implementation
 Colorado: Started with Leadership Team
 Illinois: Started with Leadership Advocates and built team only after implementation
expanded.

All states began with small “demonstrations” that documented the
feasibility and impact of SWPBIS.

Only when states reached 100-200 demonstrations did scaling occur.
Four core features needed for scaling:





Administrative Leadership / Support/ Funding
Technical capacity (Local training, coaching and behavioral expertise)
Local Demonstrations of feasibility and impact (100-200)
Evaluation data system (to support continuous improvement)
Essential role of Data: Fidelity data AND Outcome data
Lessons Learned

Maintain a clear and unrelenting focus on student
outcomes (academic and social)

Select research-validated practices that provide a multitiered system of support.

Use data for decision-making to assess BOTH fidelity and
impact.
◦ Assume continuous improvement is essential for sustainability

Build the systems (team structure, policies, data sources)
that support high fidelity implementation

Invest in durable, large-scale applications of effective
practices.
Values
Science
Practices that
affect quality of
life
Practices that
work
PBIS
Vision
Practices that
are practical,
durable and
available