Transcript ORGANIZATION & DELIVERY OF TERTIARY SYSTEMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL
ORGANIZATION & DELIVERY OF TERTIARY SYSTEMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL
Cynthia M. Anderson & Kimberli Breen University of Oregon & Illinois PBIS
Challenge for Schools
Produce students who are academically and socially competent But, must meet these outcomes in the face of… Students from increasingly varied backgrounds Decreasing funding
Problems at Schools
Struggling readers Can’t read at all Letter/word reversal Comprehension difficulties Memorization difficulties Retention problems English language learners Lack of number recognition Math fact deficits Homework completion Sloppy work Test anxiety Oral reading fluency Poor writing skills Fights Property destruction Weapons violation Violence toward teachers Tobacco use Drug use Alcohol use Insubordination Noncompliance Late to class Truancy Inappropriate language Harassment Trespassing Vandalism Verbal abuse
SWPBS: Universal Level
Supporting Staff Behavior OUTCOMES Supporting Decision Making
Systems Outcomes Practices
Supporting Student Behavior
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
~5% ~15% Intensive Interventions Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior Targeted Interventions Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior Universal Interventions School-/Classroom Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students
Supporting Staff Behavior OUTCOMES Supporting Decision Making
Systems Outcomes Practices
Supporting Student Behavior
Practices
Continuum of supports
Attendance, RFA, ODR, GPA, etc.
Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems
Tier 2/Secondary
Small Group Interventions
(CICO, etc)
Group Interventions with Individualized components CICO data, data from other targeted groups Functional Behavior Assessment
Tier 3/ Tertiary
Function-based intervention
Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Practices
Continuum of supports Documentation for targeted and intensive interventions What intervention consists of Materials needed Data-based decision rules Plan for progress monitoring Interventions for academic and social behavior linked CICO Features BSP Features
School-Wide Systems for Student Success: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Academic Systems Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions
•Individual students •Assessment-based •High intensity
Tier 2/Secondary Interventions
•Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response •Small group interventions • Some individualizing
5-15% 1-5% Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90%
•All students •Preventive, proactive
1-5% 5-15% Behavioral Systems Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions
•Individual students •Assessment-based •Intense, durable procedures
Tier 2/Secondary Interventions
•Some students (at-risk) •High efficiency •Rapid response •Small group interventions •Some individualizing
80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students •Preventive, proactive
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/schoolwide.htm
Practices
• Continuum of supports • Interventions for academic and social behavior linked Multiple ways of identifying students who may benefit Office discipline referrals Request for assistance Formative evaluations
Supporting Staff Behavior OUTCOMES Supporting Decision Making
Systems Outcomes Practices
Supporting Student Behavior
Systems
Teams to support all students SWPBS/leadership team Guide implementation of universal intervention Monitor outcomes and process (fidelity) Braid incoming initiatives into SWPBS Communicate with school community about SWPBS Teams to Build systems and interventions for secondary tertiary Progress monitor Conduct FBA & wraparound and build interventions
Example: IPBS Systems
Goal: Build systems and interventions for secondary tertiary Initial “new teams training” & admin training Focus on systems and progress monitoring Monthly district team meetings Support plan coaching Systems for Tier II interventions What skills/materials are needed?
What are target behaviors?
What is the goal?
What defines progress and lack of progress?
CICO Features
Example: IPBS Systems
Teams to support all students SWPBS/leadership team IPBS Team Responsibilities Membership Coordinator Administrator FBA coordinator Targeted interventions coordinator Academic specialist Representation from Regular and Special ed.
Minutes
Example: IPBS Systems
Teams to support all students SWPBS/leadership team IPBS team Student-focused team Responsibilities Conduct functional behavior assessment Build support plan Membership Someone with expertise in function-based support Teacher(s), other stakeholders Parent, student
Systems
Teams to support all students System for monitoring outcomes Access to assistance Assistance for teachers Assistance for team members Link across continuum of PBS (universal, targeted, intensive) School-family connection
Supporting Staff Behavior OUTCOMES Supporting Decision Making
Systems Outcomes Practices
Supporting Student Behavior
Outcomes/Data
Individual students Tools for data collection Tools for easy graphing and evaluation Teachers receive feedback regularly Parents receive feedback regularly Effects of system monitored Outcomes Fidelity Social validity Daily Fidelity
Our Goal: Supporting students with significant challenges With positive outcomes With fidelity Over time
Challenges for Districts
Universal level of PBS available for ALL students Moving from one-student at a time, reactive approaches to capacity within schools to support the behavior of ALL students?
Developing and implementing systems needed for tertiary implementation Referrals to Special Education seen as the “intervention” FBA viewed as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention Interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect
Districts Support School
Practices
Practices to be supported Targeted interventions Function-based support Data-based decision rules District support Investment in 2-4 targeted interventions Initial and on-going training for relevant personnel Build capacity in efficient FBA Technical assistance available for comprehensive FBA/BSP On-site coaching for new IPBS schools Hiring practices promote implementation of evidence-based interventions
Districts Support School
Systems
District teams support school teams District leadership team District IPBS team SWPBS a priority for district Funding available for school SWPBS efforts
Districts Support School
Use of Data
District provides schools data system—all tiers District uses data to guide decision-making Training needs Support needs District highlights important outcomes for stakeholders
IPBS Timeline
Year 1 Summer/Fall • Team functioning • Data-based Decision-making Year 2 • FBA/BSP Advanced • Targeted Intervention Systems • Family involvement Year 1 Winter/Spring Efficient FBA CICO/BEP Year 3 and on • Formative Evaluation • Sustainability • Monitoring Systems Effects
Illinois Example……
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 Secondary/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 (CICO/BIP/Wrap, etc) Secondary/Tertiary Coaching Capacity Wraparound Facilitators
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
Ongoing Self
–
Assessment of Secondary/Tertiary Implementation
Building Level:
IL Phases of Implementation (PoI) Tool IL Secondary/Tertiary Intervention Tracking Tool Sp. Ed Referral Data Suspensions/Expulsions/Placements (ongoing) Aggregate Individual Student Data (IL SIMEO data) LRE Data trends Subgroup data (academic, discipline, Sp. Ed. Referral, LRE, etc)
District Level:
Referral to Sp.Ed. Data LRE Data (aggregate and by building) IL Out-of-Home-School-Tracking Tool (multiple sorts) Aggregate SIMEO data Aggregate PoI Data
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems
ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc.
Tier 2/Secondary
Small Group Interventions
(CICO, SAIG, etc)
Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc.
SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Tier 3/ Tertiary
Multiple-Domain FBA/BIP Wraparound Group Interventions with Individualized Focus (CnC, etc) Simple Individual Interventions (Brief FBA/BIP, Schedule/ Curriculum Changes, etc)
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Sept., 2008 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Example: Illinois PBIS
Tertiary Systems Planning Team Secondary Systems Planning Team Secondary (Generic) Problem Solving Team Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team Wraparound Team District Tertiary Leadership Team
Example: Illinois PBIS’s Tertiary Planning Team
Administrator Social worker/guidance/school psychologist General Educator Special Educator Tertiary Coach
Example: Illinois PBIS’s Tertiary System Planning Team
Building-based team Supported by Tertiary Coach Review/assess all levels of intervention Data, referrals, team perspectives Focus on effectiveness of Tertiary interventions (data, not individual students) Pull interventions down to Universal & Secondary levels (efficiency) Strengthen Tertiary interventions with Universal & Secondary (effectiveness) Support wraparound facilitators
Example: Illinois PBIS’ Student-Specific Teams
Wraparound Team: Family of child and all relevant stakeholders invited by family. Wrap facilitators are trained to effectively engage families so that they will see that these teams are created by and for the family, and therefore will want to have a team and actively participate. School staff involved are informed that their presence is uniquely important for this youth and invited to participate. Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team: Like the wraparound team, this team is uniquely created for each individual child in need of comprehensive planning and the families are critical members of the team (esp. since planning is done based on multiple-life domains). All relevant individuals/staff are invited.
So…..
What are the Outcomes?
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2005-06 Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (381 students) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Students In Group 0 or 1 2 to 5 % ODRs From Group 6+
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2006-07 Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (396 students) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Students In Group 0 or 1 2 to 5 % ODRs From Group 6+
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2007-08 Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (408 students) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Students In Group 0 or 1 2 to 5 % ODRs From Group 6+
Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” Triangle Data Breakdown Year 2005-06 # of Students 6+ 4 # of Students 2-5 11 # of Students 0-1 366 # of ODRs 6+ 28 # of ODRs 2 5 # of ODRs 0-1 36 21 2006-07 1 2007-08 0 22 7 373 401 6 0 66 17 28 19
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2005-06 Elementary School “B” (638 students) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Students In Group 0 or 1 2 to 5 % ODRs From Group 6+
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2006-07 Elementary School B (637 students) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Students In Group 0 or 1 2 to 5 6+ % ODRs From Group
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2007-08 Cohort 1: Elementary School “B” (596 students) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% % Students In Group % ODRs From Group 0 or 1 2 to 5 6+
Cohort 1: Elementary School “B” Triangle Data Breakdown Year # of Students 6+ # of Students 2-5 # of Students 0-1 2005-06 0 10 628 # of ODRs 6+ # of ODRs 2-5 # of ODRs 0-1 0 26 39 2006-07 1 2007-08 3 10 12 626 581 8 18 27 29 34 28
Schools Reporting Tertiary Level Interventions
20 15 10 5 0 50
Schools Reporting Tertiary Level Interventions 46
45 40 35 30 25
33
2006-07 2007-08
Changes in Students Placed in Special Education – Hermansen Elementary School Valley View School District 365U
28 27
30 20 10 0
14 11 9 8
2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Referred for Special Ed Placed in Special Ed
Tertiary Demonstration Implementation Improves at All Levels of PBIS
3 2 1 0 Year 1 Universal N=18 schools Secondary Year 2 Tertiary
Student Data for Home/School/Community Tool
4 3 2 1 0
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Home School Data Behavioral: Pays attention to directions Emotional: Responds emotionally like other youth
Evaluation of IPBS
Can IPBS be implemented with fidelity?
In the District In the schools With individual students Does IPBS affect outcomes Across schools Within a school For individual students Is IPBS viewed as valuable and feasible?
Can Schools Implement IPBS?
100 80 100 60
Elementary Schools ISSET Scores
Fall Y1 Spring Y1 40 80 20 60 0 Foundations Targeted 40 100 20 80 Intensive Overall
Middle Schools ISSET Scores
60 0 40 Foundations 20 0 Foundations Targeted Intensive Targeted Overall
All Model Schools ISSET Scores
100 80 60 40 Fall Y1 Fall 2007 Spring Spring 2008 20 0 Intensive Foundations Targeted Overall Intensive Overall
Do Schools Implementing IPBS See Reductions in Student Problem Behavior?
20 15 10 5 0 50 45 40 35 30 25
Elementary School Example
2005-06 2006-07 3 Office Referrals 4 Office Referrals 5 Office Referrals 6+ Office Referrals 2007-08
Middle School Example
8 2 0 6 4 18 16 14 12 10 2006-07 2007-08 3 Office Referrals 4 Office Referrals 5 Office Referrals 6+ Office Referrals
What is the relation between implementation and student problem behavior?
120
Schools Scoring >85 on Foundations of ISSET
40 20 0 100 80 60 3 Office Referrals 4 Office Referrals 5 Office Referrals 6+ Office Referrals 2006-07 Baseline 2007-08 Year 1
Schools Scoring <85 on Foundations of ISSET
50 3 Office Referrals 4 Office Referrals 5 Office Referrals 6+ Office Referrals 45 40 35 10 5 0 30 25 20 15 2006-07 Baseline 2007-08 Year 1
Did Consumers View IPBS as useful in schools?
100 90 80 30 20 10 0 70 60 50 40 The IPBS training and ongoing technical assistance was effective in helping our school build (or refine existing) systems for responding to students with behavior challenges.
Administrator Team disagree neutral agree
The team is likely to sustain systems developed or refined as a result of participating in the IPBS process over the next 10 years.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Administrator Team disagree neutral agree
Summary…
Multi-tiered, comprehensive supports needed to meet needs of students in schools Effective and sustained implementation requires clearly articulated Interventions with empirical support Systems to support implementation Strategies to use data to guide decision-making
Questions about Illinois PBIS Kim Breen Questions about IPBS?
Cynthia Anderson: [email protected]
Critical Features of Request for Assistance Forms
Demographic Information (teacher and student) Definition of problem Routines analysis What has been tried Possible motivation RFA Sample 1 RFA Sample 2