School-wide Positive Behavior Support:

Discipline & BeyondGeorge Sugai

OSEP Center on PBIS

Center for Behavioral Education and Research

University of ConnecticutJuly 28, 2008

www.pbis.org www.cber.org

George.sugai@uconn.edu

PurposeDescribe 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….

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT PREVENTING VIOLENCE?

• Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence (2001)

• Coordinated Social Emotional & Learning (Greenberg et al., 2003)

• Center for Study & Prevention of Violence (2006)

• White House Conference on School Violence (2006)

• Positive, predictable school-wide climate

• High rates of academic & social success

• Formal social skills instruction

• Positive active supervision & reinforcement

• Positive adult role models

• Multi-component, multi-year school-family-community effort

What is RtI?SWPBS detour

RtI

RtI: Good “IDEiA” PolicyApproach 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”

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 PreventionKutash 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

Primary Prevention:School-/Classroom-Wide Systems for

All Students,Staff, & Settings

Secondary Prevention:Specialized Group

Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior

Tertiary Prevention:Specialized

IndividualizedSystems for Students

with High-Risk Behavior

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

CONTINUUM OFSCHOOL-WIDE

INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR

SUPPORT

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

RtI Application Examples

EARLY READING/LITERACY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

TEAMGeneral 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 measurementODR, 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, self-

management

DECISION MAKING RULES

Core, strategic, intensive Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers

Responsiveness to Intervention

Academic+

Social Behavior

All

Some

FewRTI

Continuum of Support for

ALL

Dec 7, 2007

SWPBS Features

Implementation Levels

Student

Classroom

School

State

District

SWPBS Conceptual Foundations

Behaviorism

ABA

PBS

SWPBS

SYST

EMS

PRACTICES

DATASupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement

SupportingDecisionMaking

Basics: 4 PBS

Elements

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

CONTINUUM of SWPBS

SECONDARY PREVENTION• Check in/out• Targeted social skills instruction• Peer-based supports• Social skills club•

TERTIARY PREVENTION• Function-based support• Wraparound/PCP• Special Education• •

PRIMARY PREVENTION• Teach & encourage positive SW expectations• Proactive SW discipline• Effective instruction• Parent engagement•

Audit

1.Identify existing practices by tier

2.Specify outcome for each effort

3.Evaluate implementation accuracy & outcome effectiveness

4.Eliminate/integrate based on outcomes

5.Establish decision rules (RtI)

“Train & Hope”

REACT toProblemBehavior

REACT toProblemBehavior

Select &ADD

Practice

Select &ADD

Practice

Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice

Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice

WAIT forNew

Problem

WAIT forNew

Problem

Expect, But HOPE for

Implementation

Expect, But HOPE for

Implementation

Funding Visibility PoliticalSupport

Training Coaching Evaluation

Local School Teams/Demonstrations

PBS Systems Implementation Logic

Leadership Team

Active & Integrated Coordination

Agreements

Team

Data-based Action Plan

ImplementationEvaluation

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION

PROCESS: “Getting Started”

0

5

10

15

20

Ave R

efe

rrals

per

Day

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

School Months

Office Referrals per Day per MonthLast Year and This Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

Num

ber

of O

ffic

e R

efe

rrals

Bath RBus A Bus Caf ClassComm Gym Hall Libr Play G Spec Other

School Locations

Referrals by Location

0

10

20

30

40

50

Num

ber

of R

efe

rrals

Lang Achol ArsonBombCombsDefianDisruptDressAgg/fgtTheftHarassProp D Skip Tardy Tobac Vand Weap

Types of Problem Behavior

Referrals per Prob Behavior

Referrals by Problem Behavior

0

10

20

30

40

50

Num

ber

of O

ffic

e R

efe

rrals

Bath RBus A Bus Caf ClassComm Gym Hall Libr Play G Spec Other

School Locations

Referrals by LocationReferrals per Location

Referrals per Student

0

10

20

Num

ber

of R

efe

rrals

per

Stu

dent

Students

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Num

ber

of R

efe

rrals

7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:0010:3011:00 11:3012:0012:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30

Time of Day

Referrals by Time of DayReferrals by Time of Day

Classroom

SWPBSSubsystems

Non-classroomFamily

Student

School-w

ide

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

School-wide

• Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged

• Active supervision by all staff– Scan, move, interact

• Precorrections & reminders

• Positive reinforcement

Non-classroom

• Classroom-wide positive expectations taught & encouraged

• Teaching classroom routines & cues taught & encouraged

• Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adult-student interaction

• Active supervision• Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors• Frequent precorrections for chronic errors• Effective academic instruction & curriculum

Classroom

• 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

Individual Student

• 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

Family

Who does SWPBS look

like?

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06

To

tal O

DR

s

Academic Years

FRMS Total Office Discipline Referrals

SUSTAINED IMPACTPre

Post

Elementary School

Suspension Rate

Elementary School

531

346

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2004-05 2005-06

Middle SchoolOffice Referrals

Middle SchoolSuspension Rate

Middle School

Mean ODRs per 100 students per school dayIllinois and Hawaii Elementary Schools 2003-04 (No Minors)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

N = 87 N = 53

Met SET 80/80 Did Not Meet SET

Mea

n O

DR

/100

/Day

.64

.85

Schools doing SW-PBS well report a 25% lower rate of ODRs

Illinois 02-03 Mean Proportion of Students Meeting ISAT Reading

Standardt test (df 119) p < .0001

46.60%

62.19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

PBIS NOT in place N = 69 PBIS IN place N = 52

Mea

n P

erce

ntag

e of

3rd

gra

ders

m

eetin

g IS

AT

Rea

ding

Sta

ndar

d

Schools doing SW-PBS well report associated in increases reading achievement

N =23 N = 8

Proportion of 3rd Graders who meet or exceed state reading standards (ISAT) in Illinois schools 02-03

t = 9.20; df = 27 p < .0001

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Not Meeting SET Meeting SET

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f S

tud

ents

Mee

tin

g

Rea

din

g S

tan

dar

ds

N = 23 N = 8

Schools doing SW-PBS well report associated in increases reading achievement

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Mea

n P

ropo

rtio

n of

S

tude

nts

Met SET (N = 23) Not Met SET (N =12)

Central Illinois Elem, Middle SchoolsTriangle Summary 03-04

6+ ODR

2-5 ODR

0-1 ODR

84% 58%

11%

22%

05%20%

SWPBS schools are more preventive

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)

0-1 '2-5 '6+

3%8%

89%

10%

16%

74%

11%

18%

71%

K=6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)

Mean Proportion of Students

ODR rates vary by level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)Percentage of ODRs by Student Group

'0-1 '2-5 '6+

K-6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)

32%

43%

25%

48%

37%

15%

45%

40%

15%

A few kids get many ODRs

SWPBS investments in

Prevention

Continuum of Evidence-based Behavioral Interventions

Systems Capacity for Accurate & Sustainable Implementation