Post on 13-Jan-2016
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
Systems
SupportingStaff Behavior
Practices
Supporting Student Behavior
OUTCOMES
Outcomes
SupportingDecision Making
SWPBS: Universal Level
Intensive InterventionsSpecialized
IndividualizedSystems for Students with
High-Risk Behavior
Targeted InterventionsSpecialized Group
Systems for Students with At-Risk BehaviorUniversal Interventions
School-/Classroom-Wide Systems for
All Students,Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
~15%
~5%
School-Wide Positive Behavior
Support
Systems
SupportingStaff Behavior
Practices
Supporting Student Behavior
OUTCOMES
Outcomes
SupportingDecision Making
Practices
Continuum of supports
Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
Tier 2/Secondary
Tier 3/
Tertiary
Small Group Interventions (CICO, etc)
In
terv
entio
nAssessm
en
tAdapted from T. Scott, 2004
Group Interventions with Individualized components
Function-based intervention
Attendance, RFA, ODR, GPA, etc.
CICO data, data from other targeted groups
Functional Behavior Assessment
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
Practices
CICO Feature
s
BSP Feature
s
Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions 1-5%•Individual students•Assessment-based•High intensity
1-5% Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions•Individual students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures
Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5-15%•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response•Small group interventions• Some individualizing
5-15% Tier 2/Secondary Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response•Small group interventions•Some individualizing
Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90%•All students•Preventive, proactive
80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive
School-Wide Systems for Student Success:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
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
Multiple ways of identifying students who may benefit Office discipline referrals Request for assistance Formative evaluations
Sample Formative Evaluation
• Continuum of supports• Interventions for academic and social
behavior linked
Outcomes
SupportingDecision Making
Systems
SupportingStaff Behavior
Practices
Supporting Student Behavior
OUTCOMES
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 SystemsGoal: 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 Feature
s
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
Systems
SupportingStaff Behavior
Practices
Supporting Student Behavior
OUTCOMES
Outcomes
SupportingDecision Making
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
Practices to be supported Targeted interventions Function-based support Data-based decision rules
Districts Support School
Practices
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
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
Tier 2/Secondary
Tier 3/
Tertiary
SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Small Group Interventions (CICO, SAIG, etc)
In
terv
entio
nAssessm
en
tIllinois PBIS Network, Revised Sept., 2008Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Group Interventions withIndividualized Focus (CnC, etc)
Simple Individual Interventions(Brief FBA/BIP, Schedule/ Curriculum Changes, etc)
Multiple-Domain FBA/BIP
Wraparound
ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades,
DIBELS, etc.
Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals)
Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview,
Scatter Plots, etc.
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.
What are the Outcomes?
So…..
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% Students In Group % ODRs From Group
0 or 1 2 to 5 6+
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2005-06
Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (381 students)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
% Students In Group % ODRs From Group
0 or 1 2 to 5 6+
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2006-07
Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (396 students)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% Students In Group % ODRs From Group
0 or 1 2 to 5 6+
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2007-08
Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (408 students)
Year # of Students 6+
# of Students 2-5
# of Students 0-1
# of ODRs 6+
# of ODRs 2-5
# of ODRs 0-1
2005-06
4 11 366 28 36 21
2006-07
1 22 373 6 66 28
2007-08
0 7 401 0 17 19
Cohort 1: Elementary School “A”Triangle Data Breakdown
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% Students In Group % ODRs From Group
0 or 1 2 to 5 6+
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2005-06
Elementary School “B” (638 students)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% Students In Group % ODRs From Group
0 or 1 2 to 5 6+
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2006-07
Elementary School B (637 students)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% Students In Group % ODRs From Group
0 or 1 2 to 5 6+
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2007-08
Cohort 1: Elementary School “B” (596 students)
Cohort 1: Elementary School “B”
Triangle Data Breakdown
Year # of Students 6+
# of Students 2-5
# of Students 0-1
# of ODRs 6+
# of ODRs 2-5
# of ODRs 0-1
2005-06
0 10 628 0 26 39
2006-07
1 10 626 8 27 34
2007-08
3 12 581 18 29 28
Schools Reporting Tertiary Level Interventions
Schools Reporting Tertiary Level Interventions46
33
05
101520253035404550
2006-07 2007-08
num
ber o
f sc
ho
ols
Changes in Students Placed in Special Education – Hermansen Elementary School Valley View School District 365U
914
28
811
27
0
10
20
30
2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008
nu
mb
er o
f stu
de
nts
Referred for Special Ed Placed in Special Ed
0
1
2
3
Year 1 Year 2
0=belo
w, 3
=pha
se II
I
Universal Secondary Tertiary
Tertiary Demonstration Implementation Improves at All Levels of PBIS
N=18 schools
Student Data for Home/School/Community Tool
0
1
2
3
4
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
1=h
igh
need
4=h
igh
str
en
gth
Behavioral: Pays attention to directions
Emotional: Responds emotionally like other youth
Home School Data
Can IPBS be implemented with fidelity?In the DistrictIn the schoolsWith individual students
Does IPBS affect outcomesAcross schoolsWithin a schoolFor individual students
Is IPBS viewed as valuable and feasible?
Evaluation of IPBS
Can Schools Implement IPBS?
Do Schools Implementing IPBS See Reductions in Student Problem Behavior?
Elementary School Example
3 Office Referrals4 Office Referrals5 Office Referrals6+ Office Referrals
Middle School Example
3 Office Referrals4 Office Referrals5 Office Referrals6+ Office Referrals
What is the relation between implementation and student problem behavior?
Schools Scoring >85 on Foundations of ISSET
Baseline Year 1
3 Office Referrals4 Office Referrals5 Office Referrals6+ Office Referrals
Schools Scoring <85 on Foundations of ISSET
Baseline Year 1
3 Office Referrals4 Office Referrals5 Office Referrals6+ Office Referrals
Did Consumers View IPBS as useful in schools?
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.
The team is likely to sustain systems developed or refined as a result of participating in the IPBS process over the next 10 years.
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 Questions about IPBS?
Kim Breen Cynthia Anderson: canders@uoregon.edu
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
Data Base