Transcript Rob Horner University of Oregon www.pbis.org Define core features of School-wide PBS Define how the RTI framework applies to both academic and behavior supports Present.

Rob Horner
University of Oregon
www.pbis.org
Define core features of School-wide PBS
Define how the RTI framework applies to both
academic and behavior supports
Present current descriptive data supporting
implementation of academic and behavior
supports within an RTI framework.
Most participants are very knowledgeable
about use of RTI for establishing early literacy
Some but not all participants are
knowledgeable about school-wide positive
behavior support
All are interested in efficient strategies for
linking educational improvement for literacy,
behavior, math, writing….
Supporting social behavior is central to achieving
academic gains.
RTI provides a common framework for implementing
both social and academic behavior supports
Implementation of any evidence-based practice
requires a more coordinated focus than typically
expected.
Logic
Core Features
Logic for School-wide PBS
 Schools face a set of difficult challenges today
 Multiple expectations (Academic accomplishment, Social
competence, Safety)
 Students arrive at school with widely differing
understandings of what is socially acceptable.
 Traditional “get tough” and “zero tolerance” approaches
are insufficient.
 Individual student interventions
 Effective, but can’t meet need
 School-wide discipline systems
 Establish a social culture within which both social and
academic success is more likely
Context
• Problem behavior continues to be the primary
reason why individuals in our society are
excluded from school, home, recreation,
community, and work.
Reduction in Incidence of Mental
Retardation and Learning
Disabilities
© Dean Fixsen,
The Oregon Department
Karen Blase, of Education
Robert Horner,
George Sugai,rates for all
has released graduation
2008
public high schools.
Sobering Observation
Nearly one-third of all high school
students don't receive a diploma
after four years of study.
"All organizations [and systems] are designed,
by Betsy
intentionally or unwittingly,
toHammond,
achieve
Rise in Incidence
Autism
Oregonian Monday June 29, 2009,
precisely
theofresults
theyTheget."
R. Spencer Darling
Business Expert
School-wide PBS
• Build a continuum of supports
that begins with the whole
school and extends to
intensive, wraparound support
for individual students and
their families.
What is
School-wide Positive Behavior Support?
• School-wide PBS is:
▫ A systems approach for establishing the social culture
and behavioral supports needed for a school to be an
effective learning environment for all students.
• Evidence-based features of SW-PBS
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
Prevention
Define and teach positive social expectations
Acknowledge positive behavior
Arrange consistent consequences for problem behavior
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
Predictable
Consistent
Positive
Safe
SCHOOL-WIDE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
~5%
~15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
27
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
Math
Remember that the multiple
tiers of support refer to our
SUPPORT not Students.
Avoid creating a new
disability labeling system.
Behavior
Health
Reading
School-wide PBIS now
Implemented in
10,892 Schools
Throughout U.S.
SWIS summary 08-09
(Majors Only)
3,410 schools; 1,737,432 students; 1,500,770 ODRs
Grade Range
Number of
Schools
Mean Enrollment Mean ODRs per
per school
100 per school
day
K-6
2,162
450
.34 (sd = .49)
6-9
602
657
.85 (sd = 1.11)
9-12
215
887
1.27 (sd = 2.39)
K-(8-12)
431
408
1.06 (sd = 2.60)
SWIS Mean Percentage Students (2008-09)
(Majors Only)
10%
22%
28%
Students 6+
100%
90%
80%
4%
6%
8%
14%
3%
7%
11%
17%
9%
14%
70%
60%
50%
90%
40%
90%
78%
72%
77%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pre-K
Schools N= 3
K-6
2162
6-9
602
9-12
215
K8-12
431
Students 2 to 5
Students 0 or 1
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
Dr. Laura Riffel
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
Define School-wide Expectations
for Social Behavior
Identify 3-5 Expectations
Short statements
Positive Statements (what to do, not what to avoid
doing)
Memorable
Examples:
Be Respectful, Be Responsible, Be Safe, Be Kind, Be a
Friend, Be-there-be-ready, Hands and feet to self,
Respect self, others, property, Do your best, Follow
directions of adults
Teach Behavioral Expectations
Transform broad school-wide Expectations into
specific, observable behaviors.
Use the Expectations by Settings Matrix
Teach in the actual settings where behaviors are
to occur
Teach (a) the words, and (b) the actions.
Build a social culture that is predictable, and
focused on student success.
Effective school-wide and classroom wide
behavior support is linked to increased
academic engagement.
Improved academic engagement with effective
instruction is linked to improved academic
outcomes.
The systems needed to implement effective
academic supports and effective behavior
supports are very similar.
Science guided by our values and vision
Programs and practices guided by our science
Wraparound
Math
ALIGNMENT
Literacy
Response to Intervention/Prevention
Primary
Prevention
Early Intervention
Universal
Screening
Multi-tiered
Support
Wraparound
Early
Math
Intervention
Family Support
Behavior Support
Student Outcomes
© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
Progress
Monitoring
Systems to
support
practices
1200
Number of Schools
1000
Illinois
800
600
400
200
0
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71
States
February 2009
Heather R. Reynolds
NC Department of Public Instruction
Bob Algozzine
Behavior and Reading Improvement Center
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/positivebehavior/
State PBS Coordinator
Heather R Reynolds
Dr. Bob Algozzine
Dr. Bob Algozzine
Non-PBS
Comparison
Levels of
behavior risk in
schools
implementing
PBS were
comparable to
widely-accepted
expectations and
better than those
in comparison
schools not
systematically
implementing
PBS.
Office Discipline Referral Risk in North Carolina
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004-05 (N=21)
2005-06 (N=35)
2006-07 (N=66)
2007-08 (N=110)
Comparison (N=5)
6+ ODR
5
3
4
4
10
2-5 ODR
12
9
11
11
23
0-1 ODR
83
88
85
85
67
EOG Reading
Proportion of Students Meeting State Academic Standard
Dr. Bob Algozzine
100
95
90
85
80
Schools with Low
ODRs and High
Academic Outcomes
75
Reading
Linear (Reading)
70
rxy = -.44
(n = 36)
65
60
55
50
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
ODRs per 100 Students
Office Discipline Referrals
0.80
0.90
1.00
Steve Goodman
[email protected]
www.cenmi.org/miblsi
Participating Schools
2000 Model Demonstration Schools (5)
2004 Schools (21)
2005 Schools (31)
2006 Schools (50)
2007 Schools (165)
2008 Schools (95)
2009 Schools (150*)
The strategies and organization for
initial implementation need to
change to meet the needs of larger
scale implementation.
Total of 512 schools in
collaboration with 45 of 57 ISDs
(79%)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cohort 1 (n=15)
Cohort 2 (n=19)
Cohort 3 (n=34)
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
Cohort 4
Percent of Students meeting DIBELS Spring Benchmark
for Cohorts 1 - 4 (Combined Grades)
100%
Spring ’09: 62,608 students
assessed in cohorts 1 - 4
90%
5,943
students
assessed
80%
70%
8,330
students
assessed
16,078
students
assessed
32,257
students
assessed
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cohort 1
2003-04
2004-05
Cohort 2
2005-06
Cohort 3
2006-07
2007-08
Cohort 4
2008-09
Percent of Students at DIBELS Intensive Level across
year by Cohort
Percent of Students at DIBELS Intensive
Intervention Level
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Cohort 1
2003-04
2004-05
Cohort 2
2005-06
2006-07
Cohort 3
2007-08
Cohort 4
2008-09
Percent of students
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Began MiBLSi
Implementation
2000
School
2001
District
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
Randomized Control Trials
Single-case studies
RTI Self-assessment
The Effects of School-wide PBS within a
Randomized Control Effectiveness Trial
Rob Horner, George Sugai, Keith Smolkowski,
Lucille Eber, Jean Nakasato, Anne Todd,
Jody Esperansa
OSEP TA Center on Positive Behavior Support
www.pbis.org
Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention
Group
Assessment Time Period
T1
T2
T3
Treatment (N = 30)
O
O
Control/Delay (N = 30)
O
X
O
O
X
O
(T = time (by year), O = observation, X = implementation of
SWPBS training)
T1
T2
T3
.381
N = 33
.785
N = 30
.823
N = 30
Control/Delay .388
Group
N= 26
.459
N= 27
.640
N= 23
Treatment
Group
Random
analysis (Murray,
(Murray, 1998;
1998; Singer
Singer &
& Willett,
Willett, 2003):
2003):
Random coefficients
coefficients analysis
Time
rr == .67;
d
Time X
X Condition
Condition p
p << .. 0001;
0001;
.67;
d == 1.78
1.78
Implementation of SWPBS
Initial (N = 33)
Delayed (N = 28)
Random coefficients analysis: p <.0001; d = 1.78
0.9
0.8
Mean SET Scores
0.7
0.6
0.5
Initial
Delay
Training
Training
0.4
*
0.3
0.2
PBS
*
PBS
PBS
0.1
0
T1
T2
T3
T1
T2
T3
Treatment
Group
.370
N= 24
.344
N = 29
.343
N = 25
Control/Delay
Group
.387
N = 19
.415
N= 24
.358
N = 20
Time X Condition p = .0154 r = - .40
d = - .86
Risk Factors decreased
Perceived Risk Factor Score from School Safety Survey
Mean School Safety Survey Risk Scores
Initial (N = 24)
Delay (N = 19)
Random coefficients analysis p = .0154; d = -.86
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.15
*
*
0.2
PBS
PBS
PBS
0.1
0.05
0
T1
T2
T3
T1
T2
T3
Treatment
Group
.455
N = 33
.529
N= 31
.536
N = 31
Control/Delay
Group
.38
N = 28
.402
N= 27
.436
N= 23
T2 Treatment vs. Control: p = .032
r = .28
d = .58
Percentage of 3rd Graders meeting State Reading Standard
Percentage of 3rd Graders meeting state reading
standard
Initial (N = 33)
60.00%
N.S.
Delay ( N= 28)
p = .032; d = .58
50.00%
40.00%
*
30.00%
20.00%
PBS
*
PBS
PBS
10.00%
0.00%
T1
T2
T3
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 decision-making
1. Effective and Efficient
Foundation Practices
Establishing a
Universal System
of Support
Effective Curriculum
Unambiguous Instruction
Adequate intensity
Reward System
Error Correction System
2. Universal Screening
Collect information on all
students at least twice a year
Use data for decision-making
2 or more ODRs
SSBD is used in Illinois
Jennifer Frank, Kent McIntosh,
12
Seth May
Cumulative Mean ODRs
10
Cumulative Mean ODRs Per Month
for 325+ Elementary Schools 08-09
8
0-1
6
2-5
6+
4
2
0
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
3. Continuum of
Evidence-based
Practices
Targeted interventions for
students “at risk”
Intensive, Individualized
interventions for students with
more significant needs
Early Intervention
Organizing for higher tiers of behavior support.
Check-in/ Check-out
Functional Behavioral Assessment
Intensive Positive Behavior Support
Wraparound
Teams with a purpose
Teams in a School
Universal
Supports
Team:
Academic
and
Behavior
Progress
Monitoring
Team
Plans SchoolWide & Classwide supports
Implements
CICO:
Monitors
effectiveness
and fidelity
Tier I
Sept. 1, 2009
Tier II
Individualized
Student
Assistance Team
Conducts FBA,
develops and
implements BIP,
Wraparound,
Person-Centered
Plans
Tier III
Cindy Anderson &
Nadia Sampson
Your School
1.
2.
3.
List name of teams in 1st row,
List functions or activities of team in 2nd row
Use bottom cluster of boxes for student interventions (programs).
Teams
Functions
Specific Strategies
Use arrows to indicate “student movement” (if youth don’t respond to X intervention, where do they go next?)
Illinois Team Organization for
3-Tiered PBIS System of Support
Universal
Team
Secondary
Systems Team
Problem Solving
Team
Tertiary
Systems Team
Plans SW &
Class-wide
supports
Uses Process data;
determines overall
intervention
effectiveness
Standing team; uses
FBA/BIP process for
one youth at a time
Uses Process data;
determines overall
intervention
effectiveness
Universal
Support
CICO
Brief
SAIG
Group w.
individual
feature
Brief
FBA/BIP
Sept. 1, 2009
FBA/
BIP
Complex
FBA/BIP
WRAP
One Team
Everything
Discipline
Handbook
Problem
A key to collective problem solving is to
Use
provide a visual context
that allows
Data
everyone to follow and contribute
Out of
Time
Solution
Team Initiated
Problem Solving
(TIPS) Model
Review
Status and
Identify
Problems
Evaluate and
Revise
Action Plan
Develop and
Refine
Hypotheses
Collect
and Use
Data
Develop and
Implement
Action Plan
Discuss and
Select
Solutions
Problem Solving
Meeting Foundations
Newton et al., 2010:
Effects of TIPS Training on Team Decision-making
DORA Thoroughness of Decision Making Score (Simple)
Exp
Control
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
N = 17
TIPS
N = 17
Control
0
Pre
Pre TIPS Training
Post/Exp
Post-TIPS Training
4. Progress Monitoring
Collection of data on a monthly,
weekly, daily rate
Use of data for decision-making
Individual
Student
Support
Assessing the extent to which
we are implementing what
we claim to implement
5. Fidelity Monitoring
Iowa Checklist 01-05, PK-6 % Fully & Partially Implemented
Team Implementation Checklist
Use of the data for decisionmaking
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
5
Start Up Part Implementation
5
6
6
6
7
03-Jun-05
08-Nov-04
7
08-Mar-05
03-Aug-04
01-Mar-04
01-Nov-03
01-Sep-03
06-Feb-04
07-Nov-03
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
Coherent District Policy
Clear statement of values, expectations,
outcomes
“Social Behavior of Students” identified in
school improvement plan.
Access to Evaluation and Assessment
Tools
Ability to conduct universal screening and
progress monitoring assessments
Ability to assess implementation fidelity
Recruitment and hiring
Expectations defined in job announcements
“…preference given to individuals with experience and
knowledge related to implementation of school-wide
approaches to literacy and behavior support.”
Annual Orientation of new Faculty/ Admin/ Staff
District-wide and school-wide expectations
Classroom management expectations
Collection and use of data
Commitment to individual student supports
Professional Development Planning
Focused strategies for staff development in core skills
Annual Faculty/Staff Evaluations
Expectations assessed as part of annual evaluations
Recruitment of individuals with training,
coaching, and implementation skills
Advanced skills in literacy supports
Advanced skills in behavior supports