Transcript SWPBS: National Perspective & Updates George Sugai Rob Horner OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut March 25, 2007 www.pbis.org [email protected].

SWPBS:
National Perspective
& Updates
George Sugai
Rob Horner
OSEP Center on PBIS
Center for Behavioral Education & Research
University of Connecticut
March 25, 2007
www.pbis.org
[email protected]
Address 2 Questions
from Coaches
Perspective
1. Why we do what we do?
2. What are we doing?
PBS Systems Implementation Logic
Funding
Visibility
Political
Support
Leadership Team
Active Coordination
Training
Coaching
Evaluation
Local School Teams/Demonstrations
Why Bother?
• In 1 year, 1 school (880) had 5100 ODRs, 1 student received 87
ODRs, & 1 teacher gave out 273 ODRs
• In 1 urban school district: 2004-05, 400 kindergartners were
expelled
• In 1 state 55% white, 73% Latino, & 88% Black 4th graders
aren’t proficient readers
• UConn has no behavior/classroom management course for
teachers or administrators
• 1st response to school violence is “get tougher”
• In 1 K-3 school in Mar, no teacher could give reading levels of
their students
• 2nd grade student receives “body sock” & “lemon drop” therapy
to treat violent school behavior
• In 1 state 7% of “high experience” teachers & 17% of reading
specialists can identify at least 2 indicators of early reading
success (e.g., phonemic awareness, fluency)
• Across nation, students who are truant are given out-of-school
suspensions
Rose, L. C., & Gallup. A. M. (2005). 37th annual Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public
schools. Kappan, September, 41-59.
TOP FOUR 2005
• Lack of financial
support (since
2000)
• Overcrowded
schools
• Lack of discipline
& control
• Drug use
#1 SPOT
• >2000 lack of
financial support
• 1991-2000 drug use
• <1991 lack of
discipline
Competing, Inter-related National Goals
• Improve literacy, math, geography, science, etc.
• Make schools safe, caring, & focused on teaching &
learning
• Improve student character & citizenship
• Eliminate bullying
• Prevent drug use
• Prepare for postsecondary education
• Provide a free & appropriate education for all
• Prepare viable workforce
• Affect rates of high risk, antisocial behavior
• Leave no child behind
• Etc….
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
369
400
350
276
300
250
190
200
125
150
100
50
68
15
35
0
FY
99
FY
00
FY
01
FY
02
FY
03
FY
04
FY
05
100
90
93 93
86
80
70
65
60
67
57
50
50
49
40
30
33
20
10
0
20
15
3
1999
17
10
2000
2001
2002
Schools Trained
2003
Active
2004
2005
Pre-Post SETs by Region
88
88
80
48
42
39
Special
Eastern
Central
Pre
Southern
28
25
Post
Western
48
88
84
82
Anne
Arundel
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SW-PBS Logic!
Successful individual student
behavior support is linked to
host environments or school
climates that are effective,
efficient, relevant, & durable
(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
Implementation
Levels
Student
Classroom
School
District
State
School-based Prevention & Youth
Development Programming
Coordinated Social Emotional & Academic Learning
Greenberg et al. (2003) American Psychologist
• Teach children social skills directly in real context
• “Foster respectful, supportive relations among
students, school staff, & parents”
• Support & reinforce positive academic & social
behavior through comprehensive systems
• Invest in multiyear, multicomponent programs
• Combine classroom & school- & community-wide
efforts
• Precorrect & continue prevention efforts
Lessons Learned: White House
Conference on School Safety
• Students, staff, & community must have means of
communicating that is immediate, safe, & reliable
• Positive, respectful, predictable, & trusting studentteacher-family relationships are important
• High rates of academic & social success are
important
• Positive, respectful, predictable, & trusting school
environment/climate is important for all students
• Metal detectors, surveillance cameras, & security
guards are insufficient deterents
Lessons Learned: White House
Conference on School Safety
Early Correlates/Indicators
• Significant change in academic &/or
social behavior patterns
• Frequent, unresolved victimization
• Extremely low rates of academic &/or
social success
• Negative/threatening written &/or verbal
messages
Supporting Social Competence &
Academic Achievement
4 PBS
Elements
OUTCOMES
Supporting
Decision
Making
Supporting
Staff Behavior
PRACTICES
Supporting
Student Behavior
Main Messages
STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT
Good Teaching
Behavior Management
Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity
Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems
SWPBS Conceptual Foundations
Behaviorism
ABA
PBS
SWPBS
Valued
Outcomes &
Life Quality
Local
Capacity
Building
Continuum of
Behavior Support
Science of
Human
Behavior
PBS
Features
Applied
Behavior
Analysis
Self-assessed
Action
Planning
3-tiered
Systems
Prevention
Change &
Logic
Local
Durability
EvidenceImplementers,
Based Behavioral
Context, &
Practices
Culture
Carr, Dunlap, Horner, Sailor, etc.
What does SWPBS look like?
• >80% of students can tell you what is expected of
them & give behavioral example because they have
been taught, actively supervised, practiced, &
acknowledged.
• Positive adult-to-student interactions exceed negative
• Function based behavior support is foundation for
addressing problem behavior.
• Data- & team-based action planning &
implementation are operating.
• Administrators are active participants.
• Full continuum of behavior support is available to all
students
CONTINUUM OF
SCHOOL-WIDE
INSTRUCTIONAL &
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
~5%
~15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~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
“Triangle” ?’s you should ask!
• Where did it come from?
• Why not a pyramid or octagon?
• Why not 12 tiers? 2 tiers?
• What’s it got to do w/ sped?
• Where those % come from?
Original logic: public health &
disease prevention (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
http://rtckids.fmhi.usf.edu
Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Lynn, N.
(2006). School-based mental health: An
empirical guide for decision makers.
Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
Louis De la Parte Florida Mental Health
Institute, Department of Child & Family
Studies, Research & Training Center for
Children’s Mental Health.
Prevention Logic for All
(Walker et al., 1996)
• Decrease development of new problem
behaviors
• Prevent worsening of existing problem
behaviors
• Redesign learning/teaching environments
to eliminate triggers & maintainers of
problem behaviors
• Teach, monitor, & acknowledge prosocial
behavior
Designing School-Wide Systems
for Student Success
Academic Systems
Behavioral 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
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
RtI Logic
Modify &
specialize for
non-responders
Screen
universally &
frequently
j
Teach w/ best
curriculum &
instruction
Intervene early at
all levels
Use student
behavior as
progress indicator
RtI Applications
EARLY READING/LITERACY
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
TEAM
General educator, special
educator, reading specialist, Title
1, school psychologist, etc.
General educator, special educator,
behavior specialist, Title 1, school
psychologist, etc.
UNIVERSAL
SCREENING
Curriculum based measurement
SSBD, record review, gating
PROGRESS
MONITORING
Curriculum based measurement
ODR, suspensions, behavior
incidents, precision teaching
EFFECTIVE
INTERVENTIONS
5-specific reading skills: phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, comprehension
Direct social skills instruction, positive
reinforcement, token economy, active
supervision, behavioral contracting,
group contingency management,
function-based support, selfmanagement
DECISION
MAKING RULES
Core, strategic, intensive
Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers
Sounds simple, but
IMPLICATIONS
Special
Educator
Functioning
Curricular &
Instructional
Decisions
General
Educator
Functioning
Measurement
Requirements
Implementation
Fidelity
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”
Possible RtI Outcomes
Gresham, 2005
High
Risk
No
Risk
Responder
Non-Responder
False +
True +
Adequate response
Inadequate response
True –
False –
Adequate response
Inadequate response
Implications & Cautions
(E.g., Gresham, Grimes, Kratochwill, Tilly, etc.)
• Psychometric features of measures for student
outcomes & universal screening?
• Standardized measurement procedures?
• Valid & documented “cut” criteria for determining
responsiveness?
•
•
•
•
Interventions efficacy, effectiveness, & relevance?
Students with disabilities?
Professional development?
Applications across grades/schools & curriculum
areas?
• Treatment integrity & accountability?
• Functioning of general v. special education?
Fairbanks,
Sugai, Gardino,
& Lathrop, 2007.
100
BL
CI/
CO
CI/CO
+75%
CI/CO
+80%
CI/CO
+90%
90
80
Helena
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
Jade
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
Farrell
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Began
meds.
-O
ct
3N
o
16 v
-N
o
30 v
-N
ov
7D
ec
6Ja
n
13
-J
a
n
18
-J
a
n
27
-J
a
n
3F
eb
8F
e
17 b
-F
eb
25
-F
eb
4M
a
11 r
-M
a
30 r
-M
ar
5A
p
13 r
-A
p
29 r
-A
p
10 r
-M
a
19 y
-M
ay
0
26
Percent of Intervals Engaged in Problem Behavior
70
School Days
Class B
Results
Class B
Results +
Composite
Peers
100
BL
CI/
CO
90
CI/CO
+75%
CI/CO
+80%
CI/CO
+90%
80
Helena
70
60
Peer
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
Jade
80
70
60
Peer
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
Farrell
80
70
Peer
60
50
40
30
20
School Days
eb
4M
a
11 r
-M
a
30 r
-M
ar
5A
p
r
13
-A
pr
29
-A
p
10 r
-M
a
19 y
-M
ay
-F
25
17
-F
eb
eb
Began
meds.
8F
-O
ct
3N
ov
16
-N
ov
30
-N
ov
7D
ec
0
6Ja
n
13
-J
a
n
18
-J
a
n
27
-J
a
n
3F
eb
10
26
Percent of Intervals Engaged in Problem Behavior
50
100
BL
90
Study 2
Results
CI/
CO
CI/CO
75%
CI/CO
80%
FB
plan
FB
plan 2
80
Marce llus
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
80
Blair
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
Be n
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
Oliv ia
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
6Ja
n
13
-J
a
n
18
-J
a
n
27
-J
a
n
3F
e
b
8F
e
b
17
-F
e
b
25
-F
e
b
4M
a
11 r
-M
a
30 r
-M
ar
5A
p
r
13
-A
p
29 r
-A
p
10 r
-M
a
19 y
-M
ay
-O
ct
3N
ov
16
-N
o
30 v
-N
ov
7D
ec
0
26
Percent of Intervals Engaged in Problem Behavior
90
School Days
Study 2
Results +
Composite
Peer
100
BL
90
CI/
CO
CI/CO
75%
CI/CO
80%
FB
plan
FB
plan 2
80
Marce llus
70
60
Peer
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
Peer
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
Be n
70
60
Peer
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
Peer
Oliv ia
60
50
40
30
20
10
School Days
4M
a
11 r
-M
a
30 r
-M
ar
5A
p
r
13
-A
p
29 r
-A
p
10 r
-M
a
19 y
-M
ay
6Ja
n
13
-J
a
n
18
-J
a
n
27
-J
a
n
3F
eb
8F
eb
17
-F
e
25 b
-F
eb
-O
ct
3N
ov
16
-N
o
30 v
-N
ov
7D
ec
0
26
Percent of Intervals Engaged in Problem Behavior
Blair
70
Messages
• RtI logic is “good thing”
– Continuous progress monitoring
– Prescriptive problem solving & data-based
decision making
– Assessment-based intervention planning
– Consideration of all students
• However, still much work to be done
• SWPBS approach is good approximation
of RTI approach…but not perfect
Future: Document…
• Technical adequacy of RtI components
(measurement, decision rules, etc.)
• Full implementation across range of
contexts
• Impact & relationship of academic &
social behavior interaction
• Systems, resources, competence
needed to maintain effects, support high
fidelity of implementation, expand
applications, & sustain implementation
of practices
Team
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
Team-led Process
School-wide Positive
Behavior Support
Systems
Classroom
Setting Systems
School-wide
Systems
Redesign Learning &
Teaching Environment
Few positive SW expectations defined,
taught, & encouraged
Expectations & behavioral skills are
TEACHING
taught & recognized in natural context
MATRIX
SETTING
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
Expectations & behavioral skills are
taught & recognized in natural context
Acknowledge & Recognize
Challenges
How do we…..
• Increase adoption of effective
behavioral technologies in classrooms &
schools?
• Ensure high fidelity of implementation of
these technologies?
• Increase efficient, sustained
implementation of these technologies?
• Increase accurate, efficient, & durable
institutionalized use of these
technologies?
1. Need,
Agreements, &
Outcomes
2. Local
Demonstration
w/ Fidelity
IMPLEMENTATION
PHASES
4. Systems
Adoption &
Continuous
Regeneration
3. Capacity,
Elaboration &
Replication
Sample of Major State Implementation Efforts
Maryland
494 schools
Alabama
219 schools
Illinois
611 schools
Colorado
405 schools
Florida
250 schools
New York
322 schools
Michigan
181 schools
Ohio
221 schools
New Mexico 130 schools
West Virginia 215 schools
Oregon
229 schools
Louisiana
285 schools
Missouri
183 schools
Georgia
171 schools
As big as many states…
• LA Unified Public Schools has over
700,000 students….Total CT
school enrollment is 570,000!
• 2005-2006, LA Unified had 72,868
suspensions, averaging 1.5
days….that’s 109,302 instructional
days lost!
Individual linked to System
Student
Classroom
School
District
State
Measurable Valued
Outcomes
Data Source
Implementers
Instrument
o Major rule
violations
o Referrals to
special education
o Decreased out of
school suspensions
o Increased
attendance
o Students
o School staff
o SWIS
o SSS
o SW Discipline
o Classroom
management
o Function-based
support
o School staff
o Coaches
o SET
o School
o ISSET
Leadership team o Team
Implementation
Checklist
o SWPBS
o Leadership
team
o Coaches
o District
o PBS
Leadership team Implementation
Blueprint
SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION & DURABLE RESULTS
THROUGH CONTINUOUS REGENERATION
Continuous
Self-Assessment
Relevance
Valued Priority Efficacy
Outcomes
Fidelity
Practice
Implementation
Effective
Practices
Other Considerations
• Pre-service preparation & induction process
– Higher education
• Educator expectations, outcomes, &
reinforcers
– Unions
• Collaborative inter-agency interactions
– Child, family, community
• Policy guidance & accountability
– Funding formulae
• Research & Development
– Efficacy & effectiveness
PBIS Messages
• Measurable & justifiable outcomes
• On-going data-based decision
making
• Evidence-based practices
• Systems ensuring durable, high
fidelity of implementation
SETTING
All
Settings
Hallways
Playgrounds
Cafeteria
Library/
Comput
er Lab
Assembly
Bus
Respect
Ourselves
Be on
task.
Give
your
best
effort.
Be
prepare
d.
Walk.
Have a plan.
Eat all
your
food.
Select
healthy
foods.
Study,
read,
comput
e.
Sit in one
spot.
Watch for
your stop.
Respect
Others
Be kind.
Hands/f
eet to
self.
Help/sha
re with
others.
Use
normal
voice
volume.
Walk to
right.
Play safe.
Include
others.
Share
equipment.
Practice
good
table
manners
Whispe
r.
Return
books.
Listen/watc
h.
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
carefull
y.
Pick up.
Treat
chairs
appropriate
ly.
Wipe your
feet.
Sit
appropriat
ely.
CONTACT INFO
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.pbis.org
Using Data to Build
& Sustain SWPBS
George Sugai
Rob Horner
OSEP Center on PBIS
Center for Behavioral Education & Research
University of Connecticut
March 25, 2007
www.pbis.org
[email protected]
Purpose
Review different data types for
decision making & action planning
w/ emphasis on maintaining results
& sustaining accurate
implementation of effective
practices.
PBS Systems Implementation Logic
Funding
Visibility
Political
Support
Leadership Team
Active Coordination
Training
Coaching
Evaluation
Local School Teams/Demonstrations
Training
Coaching
Evaluation
Training
Coaching
• Continuous
• Local support
• Data-based
• Preventive
• Positive
• Competent
• Etc….
•Evaluation
Continuous
• Question-based
• Academic & social
• Efficient
• Team-coordinated
• Public
• Etc….
• Continuous
• Embedded
• Team-coordinated
• Data-based
• Local expertise
• Action plan linked
• Etc….
Role of “Coaching”
• Liaison between school teams &
district/state leadership team
• Local facilitation of process
• Local resource for data-based
decision making
Funding
• General fund
• 3 years of support
• Integrated
• Data-based
• Etc….
Visibility
• Demos & research
• Multiple formats
• Multiple audiences
• Acknow. others
• Etc….
Political
Support
• Continuous
• Top 3 priorities
• Quarterly/annually
• Policy
• Participation
• Etc….
Local School Teams/Demonstrations
• Fidelity implementation
• >80% of staff
• >80% of students
• Administrator leadership
• Team-based
• Data driven
• Contextually relevant
• Teaching focused
• Integrated initiatives
• Etc…..
Tools (pbis.org)
•
•
•
•
•
•
EBS Self-assessment
TIC: Team Implementation Checklist
SSS: Safe Schools Survey
SET: Systems School-wide Evaluation Tool
BoQ: Benchmarks of Quality
PBS Implementation & Planning Selfassessment
• ISSET: Individual Student Systems
Evaluation Tool (pilot)
• SWIS: School-Wide Information System
(swis.org)
Getting Started: “Team
Implementation Checklist”
Establish Commitment
1. Administrator’s support & active
involvement.
2. Faculty/Staff support (One of top
3 goals, 80% of faculty document
support, 3 year timeline).
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.
Self-Assessment
6. Team/faculty completes EBS selfassessment survey.
7. Team summarizes existing school
discipline data.
8. Strengths, areas of immediate
focus & action plan are identified.
Establish School-wide
Expectations
9. 3-5 school-wide behavior expectations are defined.
10. School-wide teaching matrix developed.
11. Teaching plans for school-wide expectations are
developed.
12. School-wide behavioral expectations taught directly
& formally.
13. System in place to acknowledge/reward school-wide
expectations.
14. Clearly defined & consistent consequences and
procedures for undesirable behaviors are
developed.
Establish Information
System
15. Discipline data are gathered,
summarized, & reported.
Build Capacity for
Function-based Support
16. Personnel with behavioral expertise
are identified & involved.
17. Plan developed to identify and
establish systems for teacher support,
functional assessment & support plan
development & implementation.
On-going
1. EBS team has met at least monthly.
2. EBS team has given status report to faculty
at least monthly.
3. Activities for EBS action plan implemented.
4. Accuracy of implementation of EBS action
plan assessed.
5. Effectiveness of EBS action plan
implementation assessed.
6. EBS data analyzed.
“SW-PBS Monthly
Planning Guide”
(Sugai Draft May 2006)
Purpose
• Give SWPBS leadership teams
extra organizational tool for
reviewing & planning their current &
future implementation activities
• Use self-assessment to guide
teams in their action planning
• “Ending & Beginning School Year”
Monthly Activity Schedule
Month: _________ SWPBS Team Activities to Support…..
All Students/Staff (“Green”)

Monthly

Conduct SWPBS leadership team meeting to review
data and progress on action plan activities, and plan
new activities, as needed.
Report to staff on status of SWPBS.
Students w/PBS Needs (“Yellow/Red”)

Report to staff on status of students on secondary and
tertiary behavioral intervention plans.

Review progress of students on secondary and
tertiary intervention plans
Nominate/review new students who might need
individualized PBS
Send parents progress report

Weekly
Daily

Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
•
Work as school-wide leadership team.
Begin by reviewing current behavioral data
Link all activities to measurable action plan
outcomes & objectives.
Use “effectiveness, efficiency, & relevance”
to judge whether activity can be
implemented w/ accuracy & sustained.
Use, review, & update this planning guide
at monthly team meetings.
Plan activities 12 months out.
Planning Guide Self-Assessment
Highlights essential SWPBS
practices & systems for years 1-2
implementation
F = fully in place (e.g., >80%)
P = partially in place
N = not in place/don’t know
“STAFF”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
State definition of SWPBS?
State purpose of SWPBS team?
State SW positive expectations?
Actively supervise in non-classroom
settings?
Agree to support SWPBS action plan?
Have more positive than negative daily
interactions with students?
Have opportunities to be recognized for
their SWPBS efforts?
“STUDENTS”
8.
State SW positive expectations & give
contextually appropriate behavior
examples?
9.
Received daily positive academic and/or
social acknowledgement?
10. Have 0-1 major office discipline referrals for
year?
11. Have secondary/tertiary behavior
intervention plans if >5 major office
referrals?
“TEAM”
12. Representative membership?
13. At least monthly meetings?
14. Active administrator participation?
15. Active & current action plan?
16. Designated coaching/facilitation
support
“DATA”
17. Measurable behavioral definitions for rule
violations?
18. Discipline referral or behavior incident
recording form that is efficient and
relevant?
19. Clear steps for processing, storing,
summarizing, analyzing, and reporting
data?
20. Schedule for monthly review of school-wide
data?
“SW POSITIVE
EXPECTATIONS”
21. Agreed to 3-5 positively stated SW
expectations?
22. Complete (behaviors, context,
examples) lesson plan or matrix for
teaching expectations?
23. Schedule for teaching expectations in
context to all students?
24. Schedule for practice/review/boosters
of SW expectations?
“ENCOURAGING/ ACKNOWLEDGING
EXPECTATIONS”
25. Continuum or array of positive
consequences?
26. At least daily opportunities to be
acknowledged?
27. At least weekly
feedback/acknowledgement?
“RULE VIOLATIONS”
28. Leveled definitions of problem behavior?
29. Procedures for responding to minor
(nonrecordable) violations?
30. Procedures for responding to minor (nonoffice referable, recordable) violations?
31. Procedures for responding to major (officereferable) violations?
32. Procedures for preventing major violations?
33. Quarterly review of effectiveness of SW
consequences for rule violations
“NONCLASSROOM SETTINGS”
34. Active supervision by all staff
across all settings?
35. Daily positive student
acknowledgements?
“CLASSROOM SETTINGS”
36. Agreement about classroom & nonclassroom
managed problem behaviors?
37. Linkage between SW & classroom positive
expected behaviors?
38. High rates of academic success for all students?
39. Typical classrooms routines directly taught &
regularly acknowledged?
40. Higher rates of positive than negative social
interactions between teacher & students?
41. Students with PBS support needs receiving
individualized academic & social assistance?
“STUDENTS W/ PROBLEM
BEHAVIORS”
42. Regular meeting schedule for behavior
support team?
43. Behavioral expertise/competence on team?
44. Function-based approach?
45. District/community support?
46. SW procedures for secondary
prevention/intervention strategies?
47. SW procedures for tertiary
prevention/intervention strategies?
Monthly Activity Schedule
Month: _________ SWPBS Team Activities to Support…..
All Students/Staff (“Green”)

Monthly

Conduct SWPBS leadership team meeting to review
data and progress on action plan activities, and plan
new activities, as needed.
Report to staff on status of SWPBS.
Students w/PBS Needs (“Yellow/Red”)

Report to staff on status of students on secondary and
tertiary behavioral intervention plans.

Review progress of students on secondary and
tertiary intervention plans
Nominate/review new students who might need
individualized PBS
Send parents progress report

Weekly
Daily

Data Uses
1. Descriptive examples &
testimonials
2. Local decision making & planning
3. Evaluation for sustained &
expanded implementation
4. Demonstration of causal
relationships
1. Descriptions &
Testimonials
Use of examples for buy-in,
adoption, rationale, etc.
“We found some
minutes?”
After reducing their office
discipline referrals from 400 to
100, middle school students
requiring individualized,
specialized behavior
intervention plans decreased
from 35 to 6.
Janney Jaguers Jan 06
LaSalle Jan 06
“Mom, Dad, Auntie, &
Jason”
In a school where over 45% of
400 elem. students receive
free-reduced lunch, >750 family
members attended Family Fun
Night.
“She can read!”
With minutes reclaimed from
improvements in proactive SW
discipline, elementary school
invests in improving schoolwide literacy.
Result: >85% of students in 3rd
grade are reading at/above
grade level.
I like workin’ at school
• After implementing SW-PBS,
Principal at Jesse Bobo Elementary
reports that teacher absences
dropped from 414 (2002-2003) to
263 (2003-2004)
• Over past 3 years, 0 teacher
requests for transfers
“I like it here.”
Over past 3 years, 0 teacher
requests for transfers
ODR Admin. Benefit
Springfield MS, MD
2001-2002
2277
2002-2003
1322
= 955 42% improvement
= 14,325 min. @15 min.
= 238.75 hrs
= 40 days Admin. time
ODR Instruc. Benefit
Springfield MS, MD
2001-2002
2277
2002-2003
1322
= 955 42% improvement
= 42,975 min. @ 45 min.
= 716.25 hrs
= 119 days Instruc. time
Sample Teaming Matrix
Initiative,
Committee
Purpose
Outcome
Target
Group
Staff
Involved
SIP/SID
Attendance
Committee
Increase
attendance
Increase % of
students attending
daily
All students
Eric, Ellen,
Marlee
Goal #2
Character
Education
Improve
character
Improve character
All students
Marlee, J.S.,
Ellen
Goal #3
Safety
Committee
Improve safety
Predictable response
to threat/crisis
Dangerous
students
Has not met
Goal #3
School Spirit
Committee
Enhance school
spirit
Improve morale
All students
Has not met
Discipline
Committee
Improve behavior
Decrease office
referrals
Bullies,
antisocial
students,
repeat
offenders
Ellen, Eric,
Marlee, Otis
DARE
Committee
Prevent drug use
High/at-risk
drug users
Don
EBS Work Group
Implement 3-tier
model
All students
Eric, Ellen,
Marlee, Otis,
Emma
Decrease office
referrals, increase
attendance, enhance
academic
engagement, improve
grades
Goal #3
Goal #2
Goal #3
2. Local Decision
Making & Planning
Past & current local
information used for
developing/revising action
plans
T otal O ffic e D is c ipl ine R efer r al
Kennedy Middle School
1500
1200
900
600
300
0
95-96
96-97
97-98
School Years
98-99
Office Re fe rrals pe r Day pe r M onth
A v e R efer r als per D ay
Last Year and This Year
20
15
10
5
0
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
School Months
Apr
May
Jun
N um ber of O ffic e R efer r als
Referrals by Location
50
40
30
20
10
0
B ath R B us A
B us
C af
C lass C omm
Gym
H all
School Locations
Libr
P lay G S pec
Other
N um ber of R efer r als
Referrals by Problem
Re fe rr als
pe r Prob Be havior
Behavior
50
40
30
20
10
0
L a n g Ac h o l Ars o n Bo m bCo m b sDe f i a nDi s ru p tDre s sAg g / f g tT h e f tHa ra s sPro p D Sk i p T a rd y T o b a c Va n d W e a p
Types of Problem Behavior
Referrals per Location
N um ber of O ffic e R efer r als
Referrals by Location
50
40
30
20
10
0
B ath R B us A
B us
C af
C lass C omm
Gym
H all
School Locations
Libr
P lay G S pec
Other
N um ber of R efer r als per S tudent
Referrals per Student
20
10
0
Students
Referrals by Time of Day
N um ber of R efer r als
Re fe rrals by Tim e of Day
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
7 : 0 0 7 : 3 0 8 : 0 0 8 : 3 0 9 : 0 0 9 : 3 0 1 0 : 0 01 0 : 3 01 1 : 0 01 1 : 3 01 2 : 0 01 2 : 3 0 1 : 0 0 1 : 3 0 2 : 0 0 2 : 3 0 3 : 0 0 3 : 3 0
Time of Day
3. Evaluation for
Sustained & Expanded
Implementation
Planning & preparing for
maintained results &
sustained accurate
implementation of effective
practices & systems
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
DC Public Schools Cohort 1
Team Implementation Checklist
100
90
80%
80
% Fully/Partially Implemented
70
60
3/1/2005
50
5/26/2005
8/5/2005
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TICs Cohort 1
Mar05, May05, Aug05
10
11
12
Pre-Post SETs by
Region
88
88
80
48
42
39
Special
Eastern
Central
Pre
Southern
28
25
Post
Western
48
88
84
82
Anne
Arundel
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000-2007
District-Wide SET Scores
Bethel SET Scores K-12
100
90
% of Implementation Points
80
70
Fall 00
Spring 01
60
Spring 02
Spring 03
50
Spring 04
Spring 05
40
Spring 06
Spring 07
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
369
400
350
276
300
250
190
200
125
150
100
50
68
15
35
0
FY
99
FY
00
FY
01
FY
02
FY
03
FY
04
FY
05
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)
Mean Proportion of Students
0-1
'2-5
'6+
100%
90%
3%
8%
10%
11%
16%
18%
89%
74%
71%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
K=6 (N = 1010)
6-9 (N = 312)
9-12 (N = 104)
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)
Percentage of ODRs by Student Group
'0-1
'2-5
'6+
100%
90%
32%
48%
45%
43%
37%
40%
25%
15%
15%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
K-6 (N = 1010)
6-9 (N = 312)
9-12 (N = 104)
SWIS summary 05-06
(Majors Only)1675 schools, 839,075 students
Grade
Range
#
Schools
# Students
(mean)
Mean ODR/100/
school day (sd)
K-6
1010
0.37
6-9
313
439,932
(435)
205,159
(655)
9-12
104
102,325
(983)
1.16 (1.37)
K-(8-12)
248
91,659
(369)
1.53
(0.50)
1.02 (1.07)
(4.49)
4. Demonstrations of
Causal Relationships
Conducting studies that
verify relationship between
observed effects &
systematic manipulation of
intervention & practices.
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
0.6
0.4
0.2
N =23
N = 23
NN==88
0
Not Meeting SET
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
0
Met SET (N = 23)
Not Met SET (N =12)
6+ ODR
2-5 ODR
0-1 ODR
Fairbanks,
Sugai, Gardino,
& Lathrop, 2007.
100
BL
CI/
CO
CI/CO
+75%
CI/CO
+80%
CI/CO
+90%
90
80
Helena
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
Jade
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
Farrell
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Began
meds.
-O
ct
3N
o
16 v
-N
o
30 v
-N
ov
7D
ec
6Ja
n
13
-J
a
n
18
-J
a
n
27
-J
a
n
3F
eb
8F
e
17 b
-F
eb
25
-F
eb
4M
a
11 r
-M
a
30 r
-M
ar
5A
p
13 r
-A
p
29 r
-A
p
10 r
-M
a
19 y
-M
ay
0
26
Percent of Intervals Engaged in Problem Behavior
70
School Days
Class B
Results
Class B
Results +
Composite
Peers
100
BL
CI/
CO
90
CI/CO
+75%
CI/CO
+80%
CI/CO
+90%
80
Helena
70
60
Peer
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
Jade
80
70
60
Peer
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
Farrell
80
70
Peer
60
50
40
30
20
School Days
eb
4M
a
11 r
-M
a
30 r
-M
ar
5A
p
r
13
-A
pr
29
-A
p
10 r
-M
a
19 y
-M
ay
-F
25
17
-F
eb
eb
Began
meds.
8F
-O
ct
3N
ov
16
-N
ov
30
-N
ov
7D
ec
0
6Ja
n
13
-J
a
n
18
-J
a
n
27
-J
a
n
3F
eb
10
26
Percent of Intervals Engaged in Problem Behavior
50
100
BL
90
Study 2
Results
CI/
CO
CI/CO
75%
CI/CO
80%
FB
plan
FB
plan 2
80
Marce llus
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
80
Blair
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
Be n
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
Oliv ia
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
6Ja
n
13
-J
a
n
18
-J
a
n
27
-J
a
n
3F
e
b
8F
e
b
17
-F
e
b
25
-F
e
b
4M
a
11 r
-M
a
30 r
-M
ar
5A
p
r
13
-A
p
29 r
-A
p
10 r
-M
a
19 y
-M
ay
-O
ct
3N
ov
16
-N
o
30 v
-N
ov
7D
ec
0
26
Percent of Intervals Engaged in Problem Behavior
90
School Days
Study 2
Results +
Composite
Peer
100
BL
90
CI/
CO
CI/CO
75%
CI/CO
80%
FB
plan
FB
plan 2
80
Marce llus
70
60
Peer
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
Peer
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
Be n
70
60
Peer
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
Peer
Oliv ia
60
50
40
30
20
10
School Days
4M
a
11 r
-M
a
30 r
-M
ar
5A
p
r
13
-A
p
29 r
-A
p
10 r
-M
a
19 y
-M
ay
6Ja
n
13
-J
a
n
18
-J
a
n
27
-J
a
n
3F
eb
8F
eb
17
-F
e
25 b
-F
eb
-O
ct
3N
ov
16
-N
o
30 v
-N
ov
7D
ec
0
26
Percent of Intervals Engaged in Problem Behavior
Blair
70
PBIS Messages
• Measurable & justifiable outcomes
• On-going data-based decision
making
• Evidence-based practices
• Systems ensuring durable, high
fidelity of implementation
SETTING
All
Settings
Hallways
Playgrounds
Cafeteria
Library/
Comput
er Lab
Assembly
Bus
Respect
Ourselves
Be on
task.
Give
your
best
effort.
Be
prepare
d.
Walk.
Have a plan.
Eat all
your
food.
Select
healthy
foods.
Study,
read,
comput
e.
Sit in one
spot.
Watch for
your stop.
Respect
Others
Be kind.
Hands/f
eet to
self.
Help/sha
re with
others.
Use
normal
voice
volume.
Walk to
right.
Play safe.
Include
others.
Share
equipment.
Practice
good
table
manners
Whispe
r.
Return
books.
Listen/watc
h.
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
carefull
y.
Pick up.
Treat
chairs
appropriate
ly.
Wipe your
feet.
Sit
appropriat
ely.
CONTACT INFO
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.pbis.org