Transcript School-wide Positive Behavior Support: Discipline & Beyond George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education and Research University of Connecticut July 28, 2008 www.pbis.org www.cber.org [email protected].

School-wide Positive
Behavior Support:
Discipline & Beyond
George Sugai
OSEP Center on PBIS
Center for Behavioral Education and Research
University of Connecticut
July 28, 2008
www.pbis.org
www.cber.org
[email protected]
Purpose
Describe rationale, features, &
outcomes of SWPBS (PBIS)
• Prevention
• Continuum of Evidence-based Practices
• Academic-Behavior Link
• Systems Capacity
4 Challenges
• Negative school-wide disciplinary
climate
• “Get Tough” discipline
• “Train-n-Hope” professional
development
• Lack of effective minutes
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)
Non-responsive problem
behavior….”Get Tough!”
Disciplinary RtI
• Clamp down & increase monitoring
• Re-re-re-review rules
• Extend continuum & consistency of
consequences
• Establish “bottom line”
When behavior doesn’t
improve, we “Get Tougher!”
• Zero tolerance policies
• Increased surveillance
• Increased suspension & expulsion
• In-service training by expert
• Alternative programming
…..Predictable systems response!
But….false sense of
safety/security!
• Fosters environments of control
• Triggers & reinforces antisocial behavior
• Shifts accountability away from school
• Devalues child-adult relationship
• Weakens relationship between academic
& social behavior programming
Science of behavior has
taught us that students….
• Are NOT born with “bad behaviors”
• Do NOT learn when presented
contingent aversive consequences
……..Do learn better ways of
behaving by being taught
directly & receiving positive
feedback
Prevention
SWPBS is about….
Improving
classroom &
school climate
Integrating
Decreasing
academic &
reactive
behavior
management
initiatives
Improving
support for
students w/
EBD
Maximizing
academic
achievement
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT
PREVENTING VIOLENCE?
• Positive, predictable school-wide
climate
• Surgeon General’s
Report on Youth
Violence (2001)
• Formal social skills instruction
• Coordinated Social
Emotional &
Learning
(Greenberg et al.,
2003)
• Positive active supervision &
reinforcement
• Center for Study &
Prevention of
Violence (2006)
• Positive adult role models
• White House
Conference on
School Violence
(2006)
• High rates of academic & social
success
• Multi-component, multi-year
school-family-community effort
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
IMPLEMENTATION
W/ FIDELITY
UNIVERSAL
SCREENING
RtI
CONTINUUM OF
EVIDENCE-BASED
INTERVENTIONS
DATA-BASED
DECISION MAKING
STUDENT
& PROBLEM
PERFORMANCE
SOLVING
CONTINUOUS
PROGRESS
MONITORING
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
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?
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
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
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
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
RtI Application Examples
EARLY READING/LITERACY
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
TEAM
General educator, special
educator, reading specialist, Title I,
school psychologist, etc.
General educator, special educator,
behavior specialist, Title I, 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
Responsiveness to
Intervention
Academic
+
Social Behavior
Intensive
Targeted
Universal
Few
Some
All
Dec 7, 2007
RTI
Continuum of
Support for
ALL
Curricular &
instructional
decisions
Families &
community
interactions
Implementation
accountability
Measurement,
assessment, &
evaluation
Special
education
functioning
General
education
functioning
SWPBS
Features
Implementation Levels
Student
Classroom
School
District
State
SWPBS Conceptual Foundations
Behaviorism
ABA
PBS
SWPBS
Basics: 4
PBS
Elements
Supporting Social Competence &
Academic Achievement
OUTCOMES
Supporting
Decision
Making
Supporting
Staff Behavior
PRACTICES
Supporting
Student Behavior
CONTINUUM of SWPBS
TERTIARY PREVENTION
• Function-based support
• Wraparound/PCP
Audit
• Special Education
~5%•
1. Identify existing practices
•
~15%
•
•
•
•
•
by tier
2. Specify outcome for each effort
SECONDARY PREVENTION
Check in/out
3. Evaluate
implementation
Targeted social
skills instruction
Peer-based supports
accuracy & outcome
Social skills club
effectiveness
Eliminate/integrate based on
PRIMARY4.
PREVENTION
• Teach & encourage positive
outcomes
SW expectations
• Proactive SW discipline
5. Establish decision rules (RtI)
• Effective instruction
• Parent engagement
•
~80% of Students
“Train & Hope”
WAIT for
New
Problem
Expect, But
HOPE for
Implementation
Hire EXPERT
to Train
Practice
REACT to
Problem
Behavior
Select &
ADD
Practice
PBS Systems Implementation Logic
Funding
Visibility
Political
Support
Leadership Team
Active & Integrated Coordination
Training
Coaching
Evaluation
Local School Teams/Demonstrations
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS:
“Getting Started”
Team
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
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
SWPBS
Subsystems
Classroom
Family
Non-classroom
Student
School-wide
1. Common purpose & approach to discipline
2. Clear set of positive expectations & behaviors
3. Procedures for teaching expected behavior
4. Continuum of procedures for encouraging
expected behavior
5. Continuum of procedures for discouraging
inappropriate behavior
6. Procedures for on-going monitoring &
evaluation
Non-classroom
• Positive expectations & routines
taught & encouraged
• Active supervision by all staff
– Scan, move, interact
• Precorrections & reminders
• Positive reinforcement
Classroom
• Classroom-wide positive expectations taught
& encouraged
• Teaching classroom routines & cues taught &
encouraged
• Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adultstudent interaction
• Active supervision
• Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior
errors
• Frequent precorrections for chronic errors
• Effective academic instruction & curriculum
Individual Student
• Behavioral competence at school & district
levels
• Function-based behavior support planning
• Team- & data-based decision making
• Comprehensive person-centered planning &
wraparound processes
• Targeted social skills & self-management
instruction
• Individualized instructional & curricular
accommodations
Family
• Continuum of positive behavior support
for all families
• Frequent, regular positive contacts,
communications, & acknowledgements
• Formal & active participation &
involvement as equal partner
• Access to system of integrated school &
community resources
Who does
SWPBS look
like?
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
Elementary School
Suspension Rate
Elementary School
Middle School
Office Referrals
531
600
346
500
400
300
200
100
0
2004-05
2005-06
Middle School
Suspension Rate
Middle School
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)
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%
ODR rates vary by level
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+
A few kids get many ODRs
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)
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
SWPBS investments in
Prevention
Continuum of Evidence-based
Behavioral Interventions
Systems Capacity for Accurate
& Sustainable Implementation