Transcript Response to Intervention (RtI) Model of Continuum of Support: The Kansas-Illinois Tertiary

Session C-3
PBIS National Forum
October 11, 2007
Response to Intervention (RtI) Model of
Continuum of Support:
The Kansas-Illinois Tertiary
Demonstration Center
Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas
Lucille Eber, IL PBIS Network
K-I Center Team Leaders
•
•
•
•
Jamie Bezdek, University of Kansas
Kimberli Breen, IL PBIS Network
Jen Rose, Loyola University-IL PBIS Network
Amy McCart, University of Kansas
Evaluation :
Kelly Hyde (SIMEO)
Holly Lewandowski (PoI and SWIS data)
Big Ideas for this Session
1. How the K-I Center is applying the RtI
approach to both behavior and
academics to ensure tertiary capacity
2. Year One implementation experiences
and data from IL
3. What the K-I Center hope to “deliver” in
terms of knowledge, tools etc.
Key Questions
Does building a school-wide system of PBIS
increase school’s abilities to effectively educate
students with more complex needs?
What systems, data and practice structures are
needed to ensure that positive behavior
support being applied in needed dosage for
ALL students?
Core Features of a Response to
Intervention (RtI) Approach
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Investment in prevention
Universal Screening
Early intervention for students not at “benchmark”
Multi-tiered, prevention-based intervention approach
Progress monitoring
Use of problem-solving process at all 3-tiers
Active use of data for decision-making at all 3-tiers
Research-based practices expected at all 3-tiers
Individualized interventions commensurate with assessed
level of need
Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Tertiary Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
1-5%
Secondary Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
•Small Group Interventions
• Some Individualizing
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
5-10%
80-90%
Adapted from “What is schoo-wide PBS?” OSEP
Technical assistance on positive behavioral
Interventions and supports.Accessed at
http://www.pbis.org/schoolwide.htm
1-5%
Tertiary Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
Secondary Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
• Small Group Interventions
• Some Individualizing
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Capacity to go beyond ODR’s….
• Apply RtI process to mental health “status”
– SSBD
– Teen Screen
– Other?
• Engage community partners and families
in a 3-tiered process
• Explore other data points to
consider/pursue
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
Secondary
SWIS & other
Small Group
Interventions
Group interventions with
An individualized focus
School-wide data
BEP & group
Intervention data
Tertiary
Simple FBA/BIP
Functional assessment tools/
Observations/scatter plots etc.
Multiple-domain FBA/BIP
Wraparound
SIMEO tools: HSC-T, RD-T
Revised August, 2007 IL-PBIS
Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Continuum of Support for
Secondary-Tertiary Level Systems
1. Group interventions (BEP, Check & Connect, social or
academic skills groups, tutor/homework clubs, etc)
2. Group Intervention with a unique feature for an
individual student
3. Individualized function based behavior support
plan for a student focused on one specific behavior
4. Behavior Support Plan across settings (i.e.: home
and school)
5. Wraparound: More complex and comprehensive plan
that address multiple life domain issues across home,
school and community (i.e. basic needs, MH
treatment, as well as behavior/academic
interventions)
Ensuring Capacity at all 3 tiers
• Begin assessment and development of secondary
and tertiary tiers at start-up of universal
– Assess resources and current practices (specialized
services)
– Review current outcomes of students with higher level
needs
– Position personnel to guide changes in practice
– Begin planning and training with select personnel
• All 3 tiers addressed at all district meetings and at
every training
Requirements for IL Tertiary
Demos
•
•
•
•
District Commitment
Designated Buildings/District Staff
External Tertiary Coach/Coordinator
Continuum of Skill Sets (training, guided
learning, practice, coaching, consultation)
• Commitment to use of Data System
– Going beyond ODR’s (i.e. SSBD)
– Self assessment/fidelity
– SIMEO-Student Outcomes
District-wide Tertiary
Implementation Process
• District meeting quarterly
– District outcomes
– Capacity/sustainability
– Other schools/staff
• Building meeting monthly
– Check on all levels
– Cross-planning with all levels
– Effectiveness of practices (FBA/Wrap)
• Tertiary Coaching Capacity
• Wraparound Facilitators
Areas for District Action Planning:
1. District Data Review: NCLB, SP Ed, etc
2. Integrating Related initiatives: ASPIRE,
SEL, CHOICES, IATTAP
3. New Assessment Tools: WIT/SSBD/SSBS
4. Repositioning Staff Roles (e.g. team
facilitation)
5. Monitoring Secondary/Tertiary system
Development (including use of SIMEO)
System Data to Consider
• LRE
– Building and District Level
– By disability group
• Other “places” kids are “parked”
– Alternative settings
– Rooms w/in the building kids are sent
• Sub-aggregate groups
– Sp. Ed.
– Ethnicity
Tertiary Tier: Systems
Systems
1. Team based problem solving
• District, Building @ all 3 tiers
2. Data-based decision making system
• SIMEO
3. Sustainability focus
• redefining roles, district data review, etc.
4. Systematic Screening
• Beyond ODR’s
Tertiary Tier: Data
Data
1. Data used for engagement and action
planning with team
2. Data tools are strengths/needs based
3. Multiple perspectives and settings captured in
data
4. Show small increments of change at team
meetings
Tertiary Tier: Practices
Practices
1. Youth having access to all levels of SWPBS
2. Engagement and team development are
critical elements
3. Team facilitation is essential skill set
4. Team development process (w/a) creates
ownership/context for interventions
5. Interventions (FBA/BIP) blended into w/a plan
6. Assess/monitor fidelity with families
Secondary Training Events
800
50
600
40
30
20
400
200
10
0
0
2005-06
2006-07
Secondary Participants
Secondary Trainings
Trainings
# participants
A Two Year Comparison
Tertiary Training Events
A Two Year Comparison
30
800
20
600
400
10
200
0
0
2005-06
2006-07
Tertiary Participants
Tertiary Trainings
Trainings
# participants
1000
Tertiary Tier:
Building Level Planning Team
1. Review SWIS data for individual students
• Review their access to universal/secondary
2. Review progress/needs of team facilitators
• Trouble-shoot resources/supports
• Follows-up with District Leadership Team
3. Communicates with district team
• resources & supports needed for individual plans
• Shares data/progress
A Systemic Definition
of “Tertiary”:
If a uniquely designed team is required to
get enough of an effect to improve quality
of life of youth/family:
– Complex FBA/BIP
– Key “players” need to be engaged
– Highly individualized plan across home,
school, and community
Tertiary Tier :
Student Level
1. Full access to universal & secondary level
supports (instruction, reinforcers, BEP, etc.)
2. Active wraparound plan with facilitator
3. Wraparound team mtgs. occurring regularly
4. Principal & other pertinent staff informed of
strategies to ensure success (discipline,
communication, supports, etc.)
5. Use of data for ongoing progress-monitoring
District and Building Progress
•
•
•
•
•
Tertiary Coaches Allocated
Intensive Skill Development
Regular District and Building Meetings
Secondary/tertiary Systems being Refined
Hard look at data:
– Are current interventions working?
– How are kids with IEP’s doing?
– What does our LRE (EE) data look like?
A Focus on Tertiary
Impacts Implementation at All Levels
• Notable progress was observed in tertiary demo schools’
implementation of PBIS.
• Building-based teams met frequently to action plan and
significant gains were made during year one.
• The Illinois PBIS Phases of Implementation Tool is
being used by schools to self-assess their systems, data
and practices and guide their implementation.
• As schools invest in developing tertiary structures, they
are also taking steps to improve their universal and
secondary systems.
phase III = 3
below = 0
Illinois Phases of Implementation:
Tertiary Demo Schools (n=3)
3
2
1
0
2nd Quarter
Univ ersal
3rd Quarter
Secondary
Tertiary
2006-07 IL School Profile Data
(n=195)
• 125 Schools* reported 322 Small Group
and Individual interventions rated
“Medium”, “High” or “Very High” with an
average number of 2.6 interventions
reported per school
*Does not include Tertiary Demonstration Schools
Tertiary Demonstration School
IL School Profile Data 2006-07
• 13 TDS reported 43 Small Group and
Individual interventions rated “Medium”,
“High” or “Very High” with an average
number of 3.3 interventions per school
Jack Benny Middle School,
Waukegan
• Of 14 students placed on Check and
Connect in November 2006, seven
students showed progress in only three
weeks.
• These seven students decreased their
ODRs from a total of 19 in ten weeks to a
total of one ODR after three weeks of the
intervention.
More Intensive Intervention
Needed?
• A student with four ODRs was not experiencing
success with Check and Connect.
• After individualizing the intervention by allowing
her to choose her Check and Connect person,
she has received only one ODR, and teachers
have observed improvement in her behavior.
• This student’s progress will continue to be
monitored, but it seems that a more intensive
intervention may not be needed at this time.
Group Intervention Reduces Behavior
Problems for Students At-Risk
At Jefferson Middle School, Springfield School District
186, 14 of 22 students who began a Check and Connect
intervention in 2006-07 due to high rates of office discipline
referrals (ODRs) in 2005-06 are showing improvement.
• Total ODRs from last year to first
semester this year dropped significantly
for these eight students (from 193 to 26).
• 8 students received only five or fewer
ODRs in the first semester of this year
ODRs for Eight Students on Check & Connect
Jefferson Middle School, Springfield District 186
120
Number of ODRs
100
80
96.5
 73%
60
40
20
26
0
2005-06 Avg per
Semester
2006-07 First Semester
DATA: The BIG Question
Can teams use data-based decisionmaking to prioritize needs, design
strategies, & monitor progress of the
child/family team?
more efficient teams, meetings, and plans?
 less reactive (emotion-based) actions?
more strategic actions?
more effective outcomes?
longer-term commitment to maintain success?
Summary of FY 2007
SIMEO Student Demographics-Study Cohort
→ Age: Range in age from 6-17 years;
Mean Age-10.9
→ Grade: 50% (13) in 4-6 grades
→ General Ed: 65% (17) in General Ed;
35% (9) in Special Ed placements
→ Disabilities: 23% (6)-SLD, 7% (2)-ED
→ Ed Placement: 58% (15) in General
Ed Placement 100% of day
→ Risk of Placement Failure: 85% (22)
at-risk of failing one or more
placements
Summary of FY 2007
Number of Team Meeting Held: Time 1 verses Time 2
Study Cohort
20
Students
15
10
Time1
Time2
14
10
10
9
5
2
0
No Meetings
Held
One
Meeting
Held
Two
Meetings
Held
3
Three
Meetings
Held
4
Four or
More
Meetings
Held
N=26
Summary of FY 2007
Data Use at Team Meetings: Time 1 verses Time 2
Study Cohort
25
20
Students
22
15
15
10
11
5
4
0
Time 1
Data Used At Meetings
Time 2
Data Not Used at Meetings
N=26
Summary of FY 2007
Behavior Frequency Count: Time 1 verses Time 2
Study Cohort
Cumulative Incidence
150
125
100
125
75
50
50
25
29
27
19
11
0
Time1
ODR
ISS
OSS
Time 2
N=26
Summary of FY 2007
Placement Risk: Change Over Time
Study Cohort
High Risk
Moderate Risk
Minimal Risk
No Risk
4
3.75
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
1
2.5
Red Numbers =
Statistically Significant
Changes
2.6
2.11
2.23
1.75
1.84
1.92
Baseline
N=26
School
1.63
1.5
Time2
Time 3
N=26
N=8
Home
Community
School Time 2 to Time 3: t=3.211, df=7, p<.015
Home Time 2 to Time 3: t=3.055, df=7, p<.018
Strengths-Needs SIMEO Data
Guides Team to More Effective Interventions
A seventh grade student was assigned an escort as an
intervention due to inappropriate behavior during
passing periods in the hallways
• The intervention was not successful and problem
behavior escalated.
• From the family’s perspective, the student needed "to
feel accepted" and needed "to learn how to seek
attention appropriately".
• They switched to proactive, instructional interventions
focused on helping the student have friends and feel like
she belonged.
• Community-based activities were arranged to further
enhance her socialization opportunities during the
summer.
1=high need
4=high strength
Student Baseline Data for
Home/School/Community Tool
4
3
2
1
Home
School
Community
Behavioral: Seeks attention in appropriate ways
Cultural/Spiritual: Feels accepted
Emotional Functioning: Knows how to ask for help
Social Relationships: Gets along with adults
Family Engagement Results
in Improved Student Outcomes
A sixth grader with a family history of high mobility, poor grades,
tardies and suspensions was referred to wraparound.
• As the family became engaged through the wraparound process,
interventions previously attempted, including a Check and Connect
program, began to show success.
• In FY07, tardies decreased from 23 in third quarter to six in fourth
quarter;
• His GPA went from 1.25 in second quarter to 2.3 in third quarter; and
his suspensions dropped from 15 first semester to zero second
semester.
• The student’s family reported that this was the first time the student
had experienced success at school and was “walking with his head
up.”
• School staff reported that the student was coming in at lunch to get
extra help from his teachers and trying harder to succeed.
Student Data for
Home/School/Community Tool
Social: Respects adults in authority
Emotional: Feels he belongs
1= high need
4= high strength
4
3
2
1
Baseline
Home
Time 2
Baseline
Time 2
School
Baseline
Time 2
Community
Example of an Activity to Assess
Current Tertiary Practices
Assessing intervention history:
• Often, school staff spend a lot of time “admiring
the problem”
• Absence of a systematic, data-based approach
limits potential for successful intervention
• Use the following activity to demonstrate the
importance of using data to make decisions
Assessing Intervention History
Activity description:
1. Visualize a student that you’re currently considering
for a wrap.
2. List the interventions that have been attempted with
this student.
3. List whether these interventions have been
successful or not.
4. Provide a rationale for why each intervention did or
did not succeed.
5. Complete a Referral Disposition Tool (RD-T) for a
student, then hypothesize/list big need statements.
6. Complete Home School Community Tool (HSC-T) for
the same student. Revise big need statements, if
necessary.
Screening as Proactive Process
(SSBD)
How do you currently identify
students at-risk?
Systematic Screening for
Behavior Disorders
• Gating approach (3 “gates” of assessment;
class-wide, small group, individual)
• Students pro-actively assigned to
interventions
• Student growth/change measured
• How might you apply a screening
process?
.
Building Tertiary Capacity
in Schools
Establish full-continuum of PBIS in schools
 Identify and train wraparound facilitators
Train other school personnel about wraparound
Ongoing practice refinement & skill
development
Review data: outcomes of teams and plans
New Integrity Tools being
(in development)
• The IS-SET
• The WI-T
Challenges at Tertiary Tier
•
•
•
•
Requires complex skills
Need to find “internalizers” sooner (SSBD)
Data is buried in family/student stories
Capacity to stay “at the table” long enough
to effect change
– Engage key players,
– Establish voice and ownership
– Translate stories into data to guide plans
Building Tertiary Capacity
in Schools
Establish full-continuum of PBIS in schools
 Identify and train wraparound facilitators
Train other school personnel about wraparound
Ongoing practice refinement & skill
development
Review data: outcomes of teams and plans