Administrtive Planning/Overview PBIS Systems of Support: Tier 2/Secondary and Tier 3/Tertiary Levels of Support Vermont PBIS September 16, 2010 Lucille Eber Illinois PBIS Network www. pbisillinois. org
Objectives Participants will: • Understand the system, data and practices needed at district and school levels for effective Tier 2/3 PBIS implementation • Assess/refine school/district action planning around current systems and practices related to Tier 2/3 behavioral components of the Rt. I continuum • Develop strategies for interpreting district and building level data for planning and progress monitoring Tier 2/3 PBIS data. • Assess need for repositioning resources/personnel to initiate effective Tier 2/3 systems/data/practices
Agenda 8: 30 Big Ideas and Outcomes for Today Setting the Context > A Three-tiered System of Support > Data Examples at All three tiers System Structures Needed Planning Activity: Assessing Current Teaming Models in your District 10: 15 Break 10: 30 Tools: Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool, Systems Response Tool, Guiding Questions, CISS Planning Activity: Progress Monitoring Tools in your District? 11: 15 12: 00 1: 00 Universal Screening Lunch Secondary/Tertiary Examples: CICO/BEP & other Small Group Interventions Simple and Complex FBA/BIP Wraparound Team Process 2: 00 Break 2: 15 Moving Forward with Secondary/Tertiary in your District 2: 45 Follow-up Activities/Next Steps/Closure 3: 15 Adjourn
Context for Tier 2/3 Model Development in IL • IL EBD Network (1993 -2000) – System of Care, Wraparound, Interagency – Began SW-PBS in 1998 (20 -25 schools) • IL PBIS Network (2000 - present) – 1, 200 schools supported by Network • K-I Center: Tertiary Demo project – Six districts in 4 th Year of Tertiary demo-54 schools – Two Districts in 2 nd Year – 12 schools (Rep sites) – Five more districts in 1 st year- 15 schools (Rep sites)
More Students Access Tier 2/3 Interventions When Tier 1/ Universal is in Place FY 09 School Profile Tool Students Accessing Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions
Replication of Tertiary Demos Moving Rapidly Phases of Implementation: Secondary Phase I (n=8 Replication Schools)
Stages of Implementation occurs in stages: • • • Exploration Installation Initial Implementation Full Implementation Innovation Sustainability Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005 2 – 4 Years
Tertiary Level System Components Installation Stage 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. District Planning Team to address the system challenges and address the data trends to be changed. Building level tertiary systems planning team to monitor progress of tertiary plans and address challenges at building level. Tertiary Coaching (District level). Facilitators identified and “positioned” to facilitate Tier 3 teams and plans for 1 -5% of students. Comprehensive training and technical assistance plan. Data system/tools to be integrated into tertiary practices.
Initial Implementation Stage: • District Leadership Team meets at least quarterly • District Tertiary Coach (. 5 fte for start-up) • 3 or more buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems & Tertiary Systems Team mtgs. • 3 or more buildings with 1 -3 kids with 2 or more data points
Full Implementation Stage: • District Leadership Team mtg. with a Tertiary focus at least quarterly • District Tertiary Coaching (1. 0 fte allocated) • 6 or more buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs. • 6 or more buildings with 3 or more kids with 2 or more data points
Innovation Stage: • District Leadership Team mtg. w. a Tertiary focus at least quarterly w. community & family representation • District Tertiary Coach (1 fte ) • 9 or more buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs. • 9 or more buildings with 1 -3 % of kids with 2 or more data points • Modified district policies/procedures • Specific strategies for blending related initiatives
Sustainability Stage: • Representative District Leadership Team mtg. with integrated Tertiary focus regularly • District Tertiary Coach/es 1 fte or more (fully funded) • 80% of buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs. • 80% of buildings with 1 -3 % of kids with 2 or more data points • Modified district policies/procedures • Specific strategies for blending related initiatives
Some “Big Picture” Challenges • Low intensity, low fidelity interventions for behavior/emotional needs • Habitual use of restrictive settings (and poor outcomes) for youth with disabilities • High rate of undiagnosed MH problems (stigma, lack of knowledge, etc) • Changing the routines of ineffective practices (systems) that are “familiar” to systems
Examples of Ineffective Secondary/Tertiary Structures • Referrals to Sp. Ed. seen as the “intervention” • FBA seen as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention • Interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect – (ex: student sent for insight based counseling at point of misbehavior)
Problem • Innovative practices do not fare well in old organizational structures and systems • Organizational and system changes are essential to successful use of innovations – Expect it – Plan for it © Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
Why We Need MH Partnerships • • One in 5 youth have a MH “condition” About 70% of those get no treatment School is “defacto” MH provider JJ system is next level of system default 1 -2% identified by schools as EBD Those identified have poor outcomes Suicide is 4 th leading cause of death among young adults
Tools/Processes for Guiding Your District Plan • Unified School-Based Action Plan • District Action Plan • Triangle Activity (data and interventions) Where/how will Community Partners/Resources, including family voice, be integrated into the overall district and in school buildings?
Behavioral and Academic Interventions at All Tiers A Response to Intervention Model Academic Systems Behavioral Systems Tertiary Interventions ___________________ Secondary Interventions ___________________ Universal Interventions __________________ 1 -5% 5 -10% 80 -90% Tertiary Interventions __________________ 1 -5% 5 -10% 80 -90% Secondary Interventions ___________________ Universal Interventions __________________
Behavioral and Academic Data at All Tiers A Response to Intervention Model Academic Systems Behavioral Systems Tertiary Data ___________________ Secondary Data ___________________ Universal Data __________________ 1 -5% 5 -10% 80 -90% Tertiary Data __________________ 1 -5% 5 -10% 80 -90% Secondary Data ___________________ Universal Data __________________
Big Ideas about Tier 2/Tier 3 • PBIS legislation, SEL, Rt. I • The link between academic and social success • ALL students get access to PBS; ALL students should receive constant positive feedback • Administrators “need to know” the system, the data/tools, and the practices well enough to guide/lead any “corrections” needed. – Ex: If an individual behavior intervention plan is not working, what should you look for or ask?
Administrators Need to… – Know what the practices look like when implemented with fidelity; – Be aware of data on the tracking tool and the SR-T; help decide what needs to change; – Be active/visible on teams; – Be “hands on” with the first few tertiary plans; – Apply high-level problem-solving skills troubleshooting systems level issues.
Dealing with the Tough Issues • Adult response to problem behavior. – Adults need to model being respectful in their communications with students around behavior. – non-examples that need correcting? • School personnel should not get to choose NOT to give students evidenced based interventions.
Student “Need” or System “Need”? There is a high use of restrictive settings for students with EBD; and the outcomes for these students are not good. There is no self-contained classroom nor one-to-one aide for students with EBD in life/society after high school; just jail. Students removed from general education due to emotional/behavioral factors, are more likely to go to jail than to have good “life” outcomes. References: Bradley, Henderson, Monfore (2004) Bullock and Mc. Arthur (1994), Rutherford and Nelson (2005), Rutherford, Nelson and Woford (1985), Grosenick, George, Lewis (1991), Greenbaum, Dedrick, Freidman, Kutash, Brown, Lardieri (1996), Mathur (2007), Quinn (2004) Moore, Soloman, “Mentally IL Offenders Stretch the Limits of Juvenile Justice”, New York Times, August 10, 2009 page 1
Setting the Context: • A Three-tiered System of Support
School-Wide Systems for Student Success: A Response to Intervention (Rt. I) Model Academic Systems Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions Behavioral Systems 1 -5% • Individual students • Assessment-based • High intensity Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5 -15% 1 -5% Interventions 5 -15% Interventions • 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 • Individual students • Assessment-based • Intense, durable procedures Tier 2/Secondary • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Small group interventions • Some individualizing Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80 -90% Tier 3/Tertiary 80 -90% Interventions Tier 1/Universal • All settings, all students • Preventive, proactive
Core Features of a Response to Intervention (Rt. I) 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
What’s Different… A Systems Change Process Goal is to establish host environments that support adoption, sustain use, & expansion of evidence-based practices (Zins & Ponti, 1990)
Social Competence & Academic Achievement ST SY TA DA Supporting Staff Behavior EM S OUTCOMES PRACTICES Supporting Student Behavior Supporting Decision Making
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports: A Response to Intervention (Rt. I) Model Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems Academic Goals) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc. Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Aug. , 2009 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004 n nti o er ve t (Behavior and Int Daily Progress Report (DPR) Tier 2/ Secondary en ssm se As ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc. Tier 3/ Tertiary SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T Check-in/ Check-out Social/Academic Instructional Groups Individualized Check. In/Check-Out, Groups & Mentoring (ex. Cn. C) Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/ Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP) Complex FBA/BIP Wraparound
Implementation Data/Examples…. . • Tier 1/Universal • Tier 2/Secondary • Tier 3/Tertiary
Illinois PBIS Schools Maintaining Fidelity Over Time (n=107 schools)
Comparison of ODR’s by percent of Student Fully and Partially Implementing IL PBIS Network 2008 -09
Schools Completing Profile Tool and Implementing Small Group and Individual Interventions Across 8 Years
Suspensions in Partially & Fully Implementing Illinois PBIS Schools 2007 -08 Partially Implementing (n=41) Fully Implementing (n=154)
Comparison of Partially & Fully Implementing Illinois PBIS Schools on Fifth Grade ISAT Reading Scores 2006 -07 Partially Implementing (n=96) Fully Implementing (n=207)
AYP Comparisons Between Partially & Fully Implementing Illinois PBIS Schools 2006 -07 Partially Implementing (n=182) Fully Implementing (n=288)
School Safety and SET Fidelity in Illinois PBIS Schools Partially Implementing (n=83) Fully Implementing (n=302)
Decrease in Subjective Referral Categories Alton Middle School, ACSD
Reductions in OSS from 2006 -07 to 2008 -09 Burr Oak Elementary School, Calumet PSD
Decreases in OSS 2007 -08 to 2008 -09 J. W. Eater Jr. High School in Rantoul
Students with IEPs Spending more than 80% of School Day in General Education Setting
Students with IEPs Served in Separate Placements
Improved Access to General Education for Students with IEPs Spending more than 80% of Day in General Education Setting
Tertiary Demos Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases Simple Secondary Interventions *CICO = Check in, Check Out
ODRs, OSS, and Students in CICO Over Two Years Washington Elementary School
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Schools 16 of 18 schools with > 80% student success
Tier 2 Progress: Rob’s Discipline Data
Student Successfully Transitions out of Special Education Placement Kendall’s Daily Point Data for Behavioral Goals
FY 2009 SIMEO Study II: Time 1 and Time 2 Assessment • 125 students receiving Tertiary Wraparound Intervention within school setting • Average length of time receiving Tertiary Intervention= 9. 1 months • Baseline assessed within 30 days of team engagement (Student Disposition Tool, Education Information Tool, Home School Community Tool) • Follow up assessment conducted at Time 2 (on average 3. 94 months later) 53 3/19/2018
FY 2009 Study II Student Characteristics N=125 Students → Age: Range in age from 5 -15 years; Mean Age-9. 95 Years old → IEP Identified at Baseline: 38% (47) → Primary Disability: ED-16% (20); SLD-11 (9%) → Ed Placement: 64% (78) in General Ed Placement 100% of day → Risk of Placement Failure: 88% (110) at-risk of failing one or more placements 54 3/19/2018
FY 2009 -Study II Student Characteristics N=125 Students At Baseline: → Fourteen students (11%) had DCFS Legal Involvement; → Twenty-four (19%) had involvement with Probation → Twelve (10%) had Community Mental Health Involvement → Thirty-six (30%) of the student’s families were receiving Public Aid 55
FY 2009 -Study II Students by Role of Team Facilitator 3/19/2018 N=125 56
FY 2009 -Study II High Risk School Behaviors N=70 N=125 3/19/2018 57
FY 2009 -Study III Students by Overall Risk of Placement Baseline plus Time 2 and Time 3 High Risk Moderate Risk Minimal Risk No Risk N=70 3/19/2018 59
FY 2009 -Study III Need for Additional Assistance in Classroom Baseline plus Time 2 and 3 Study Cohort Always Frequently Sometimes Never N=70 3/19/2018 60
FY 09 Study III: HSC Social Functioning Sub-Scale: School High Strength Somewhat Need High Need N=70 3/19/2018 61
FY 09 Study III: HSC Emotional Functioning Sub-Scale: Home High Strength Somewhat Need High Need N=70 3/19/2018 62
System Tools Track Decreases in Special Education Placement Lovejoy Elementary School Special Education Referral/Placement by School Year
System Structures Needed
3 -Tiered System of Support Necessary Conversations (Teams) Universal Team Plans SW & Class-wide supports Universal Support Secondary Systems Team Problem Solving Team Tertiary Systems Team 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 CICO SAIG Group w. individual feature Brief FBA/BIP Sept. 1, 2009 Brief FBA/ BIP Complex FBA/BIP WRAP
Continuum of Teaming Tasks: Systems & Student-Specific • Secondary Systems Planning Team • Secondary (Generic) Problem Solving Team • Tertiary Systems Planning Team • Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team • Wraparound Team • District Tertiary Leadership Team
Tools Used to Build District and Building Level Action Plans for Secondary/Tertiary Implementation • • • IL PBIS Secondary/Tertiary Tracking Tool IL PBIS Systems Response Tool IL PBIS Guiding Questions Tool IL PBIS Phases of Implementation (Po. I) Checklist for Individual Student Systems (CISS) (soon to be re-named the Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers or BAT)
Progress Monitoring Secondary/Tertiary Interventions Teams need to track and monitor interventions by category: 1) How many students are receiving each intervention? 2) How many students are responding to each intervention? 3) What data is used to monitor each intervention type? Tier 2/Tier 3 (Secondary/Tertiary) Tracking Tool
Please list below how your school defines “responding” at each of the six levels: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Responding to CICO: Responding to Social/Academic instructional groups: Responding to Simple Tier 2 with Individualized Features (i. e. CNC): Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions: Responding to Complex Function-based Interventions: Responding to Wraparound Plans:
“Finding” Students in Need of Tertiary Supports • Systems Response Tool
Systems-Response Tool System Response Options Total # of Students in Category for Time Period: List date at top of column & total # of youth in each box Date: A. Students being monitored by Secondary Systems Team (ex. CICO, Cn. C, FBA/BIP) B. Students being monitored by Tertiary Systems Team (ex. Complex FBA/BIP, Wraparound) C. Students being considered for Special Education Testing D. Students with Special Education process in progress (being tested, placement being considered, etc. ) E. Students that were tested and did not qualify for Special Education F. Students suspended on one occasion G. Students suspended on two or more separate occasions H. Students placed (or at risk of placed) in separate setting or “Safe School” (ex. Alternative to suspension program) I. Students in Special Education setting, out-of-home school J. Students in “short-term” restrictive placement in clinical setting (hospitalization) K. Students with expulsion hearing in progress L. Students expelled Date: Date:
Guiding Questions Tool • Assessing and planning your Tier 2 and Tier 3 Systems, data and practices
Self-Assessing Implementation at Tier 2 and Tier 3 • Checklist for Individual Student Systems (CISS)
Elementary School A (Cohort 1) Triangle Data Breakdown Year (enrollment) # of Students 6+ # of Students 2 -5 # of Students 0 -1 # of ODRs 6+ # of ODRs 2 -5 # of ODRs 0 -1 Total # of ODRs 2005 -06 (baseline; 800) 6 29 667 48 75 62 185 2006 -07 (820) 8 34 779 54 92 55 201 2007 -08 (815) 5 30 781 32 81 41 154 2008 -09 (830) 6 26 798 71 73 35 179
100% 90% Comparison: Elementary School A FY 2009 CISS Data and IS-SET Data 88% 83% 87% 83% 80% 70% 60% CISS FY 09 50% IS_SETFY 09 88% 40% 30% 58% 47% 20% 38% 10% 0% Foundations Targeted Intensive Total
FY 2009 IS-SET Data Comparison: Elementary School A - District
Elementary School B (Cohort 2) Triangle Data Breakdown Year (enrollment) # of Students 6+ # of Students 2 -5 # of Students 0 -1 # of ODRs 6+ # of ODRs 2 -5 # of ODRs Total 0 -1 2006 -07 (baseline; 677) 5 31 642 31 88 45 164 2007 -08 (707) 0 15 692 0 41 30 71 2008 -09 (695) 2 10 684 11 26 24 # of ODRs 61
FY 2009 IS-SET Data Comparison: Elementary School B - District
Changes in Students Placed in Special Education – School “B”
Elementary School C (Cohort 3) Triangle Data Breakdown Year (enrollment) # of Students 6+ # of Students 2 -5 # of Students 0 -1 # of ODRs 6+ # of ODRs 2 -5 # of ODRs Total 0 -1 2006 -07 (717) 3 20 694 20 51 30 101 2007 -08 (713) 1 14 698 6 38 28 72 2008 -09 (731) 1 9 721 7 21 28 # of ODRs 56
Comparison: Elementary School C FY 2009 CISS Data – FY 2009 IS-SET Data 100% 91% 90% 82% 83% 82% 80% 70% 67% 60% CISS FY 09 50% IS-SET FY 09 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Foundations Targeted Intensive Total
FY 2009 IS-SET Data Comparison: Elementary School C - District
Universal Screening • Looking Beyond ODRs
Why Do We Need to Go Beyond Use of ODRs? • Use of “alternative” discipline responses; often w/o documentation. • Over use of “Special Education” placement w/o adequate dosage of interventions.
Why Do We Need to Go Beyond Use of ODRs? (continued) • High rate of unidentified MH problems. • Youth get identified only after “crisis” which makes it harder and more “costly” to intervene.
The Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) (Walker and Severson, 1992) • Developed as a school-wide (Universal) screening tool for children in grades 1 -6 – Similar to annual vision/hearing screenings
Background • Identifies behaviors that may impede academic and social functioning • Leads to earlier intervention • May reduce need formalized, lengthy “requests for assistance” by using data to identify youth
2007 -08 Implementation • Between early September-first of November, completed screenings in 6 districts and 18 schools (tertiary demos) • Initial results indicate that approximately 5%10% of students enrolled in grades 1 -6 were identified by the SSBD
Implementation • A Middle school case example: – Approximately 320 students enrolled in sixth grade were screened using the SSBD – 38 six graders or 11% passed gate two
2007 -08 Implementation • School-based secondary teams used SSBD data to implement low-intensity interventions (e. g. , check-in/check-out) for most students identified • Some students received small group instructional approaches or BIPs
Lunch
Problem • Students cannot benefit from interventions they do not experience © Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
Secondary/Tertiary Interventions • Descriptions and Examples…
Critical Features of Secondary/Tier 2 Group Interventions • • • Intervention is continuously available Rapid access to intervention (72 hr. ) Very low effort by teachers Consistent with school-wide expectations All staff/faculty in school are involved/have access Flexible intervention based on descriptive functional assessment • Adequate resources (admin. , team) • Continuous monitoring for decision-making
Why do Secondary/Tier 2 Group Interventions Work? • Improved structure • Prompts throughout the day for correct behavior • System for linking student with at least one adult • Student chooses to participate • Increased feedback • Feedback occurs more often • Feedback is tied to student behavior • Inappropriate behavior is less likely to be ignored or rewarded
Why do Secondary/Tier 2 Group Interventions Work? • Increased frequency of acknowledgment/ reinforcement for appropriate behavior • Adult and peer attention • Linking school and home support • Organized to morph into a self-management system
BEP Cycle BEP Plan Morning Check-In Weekly BEP Meeting 9 Week Graph Sent Daily Teacher Evaluation Home Check-In Afternoon Check-In Program Update EXIT
Data-Collection for Decision-Making Regular use of data by BEP team • • Monitor BEP points earned each day Academic achievement Office Discipline Referrals Other outcome data
Parkwood Elementary School (U-46) • 72% (18/25) students averaged daily points at or above 80% • 28% (7/25) students averaged below 80% • Out of 20 referrals during the four weeks, 11 were received by CICO students • 60% (17) students have not received a referral since CICO
CICO Individual Student Progress Report 4/7 4/14 4/21 4/28 5/5 5/12
Perry Elementary School (D 300) Entrance to CICO: • Teacher referral • Two of more office referrals Progress Monitoring on CICO: • PAWS (positive actions with support) for PALS (respect property, all others, learning and self). Each student has the ability to earn 56 points a day. (4 areas, 2 point maximum during 7 one hour periods) the goal is that each student will achieve 45 points (or 80%). Exiting CICO: • Student s graduate from CICO if they have met 80% or better of their goals during a four week period. Currently 35 students on CICO • Approximately 70% of students are increasing total points on a weekly basis. • 17. 5% of students are being moved to more intensive interventions.
Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups Three types of skills-building groups: 1) Pro-social skills 2) Problem-solving skills 3) Academic Behavior Skills • Use Daily Progress Report
Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups • Selection into groups should be based on youths’ reaction to life circumstance not existence of life circumstances (ex. fighting with peers, not family divorce) • Goals for improvement should be common across youth in same group (ex. use your words) • Data should measure if skills are being USED in generalized settings (ex. classroom, not in counseling session) • Stakeholders (teachers, family etc. ) should have input into success of intervention (ex. Daily Progress Report)
Critical Features • Includes structured prompts for ‘what to do’ in relevant situations (transference and generalization) • Results in student receiving positive feedback from staff • Includes a school-home communication exchange system at least weekly
Critical Features • Linked directly to school-wide expectations and/or academic goals • Continuously available for student participation • Can be implemented within 3 school days of determination that the student should receive the intervention
Other Types of Group Interventions • • Newcomers Club Homework Study Groups Lunch Bus Riders School Anger Management Group Grief Group Others from today’s audience
Activity: Assessing intervention History
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports: A Response to Intervention (Rt. I) Model Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems Academic Goals) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc. Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Aug. , 2009 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004 n nti o er ve t (Behavior and Int Daily Progress Report (DPR) Tier 2/ Secondary en ssm se As ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc. Tier 3/ Tertiary SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T Check-in/ Check-out Social/Academic Instructional Groups Individualized Check. In/Check-Out, Groups & Mentoring (ex. Cn. C) Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/ Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP) Complex FBA/BIP Wraparound
A Context for PBIS • Behavior support is the redesign of environments, not the redesign of individuals. • Positive behavior support plans define changes in the behavior of those who will implement the plan. A behavior support plan describes what we will do differently.
Functional Assessment of Behavior “BIG IDEAS” • Functional assessment is a problem solving process – a way to think about behavior systematically. “FA can be done in your head. ” • Functional assessment identifies the events that reliably predict and maintain problem behavior.
Identifying who needs an FBA/BIP • • • Academic/behavior data indicates challenge High intensity or frequency of behavior Behavior impedes academic performance Don’t understand behavior Behavior seems to meet need or be reinforcing for student • Interventions have not been successful • Use data
FBA Team Process Steps 1. Collect information 1. What does the problem look like? 2. What series of events predicts behavior? 3. What is the maintaining consequence of the observable behavior? 4. Hypothesis statement? 2. Develop “competing pathways” and replacement behaviors 3. Develop BIP. 4. Develop strategies for monitoring & evaluating implementation of BSP.
Interventions… Ownership & Voice: A Key to Intervention Design The person who is supposed to implement the strategy needs to be actively involved in designing it; or it probably won’t work!
Competing Behavior Pathway Setting Events Triggering Events Challenging Behavior Maintaining Consequences
BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLANNING Neutralize/ eliminate setting events Add relevant & remove irrelevant triggers Teach alternative that is more efficient Add effective & & remove ineffective reinforcers
Individualized Teams at the Tertiary Level • Are unique to the individual child & family – Blend the family’s supports with the school representatives who know the child best • Meeting Process – Meet frequently – Regularly develop & review interventions • Facilitator Role – Role of bringing team together – Role of blending perspectives
Individualized Comprehensive Teams/Plans Who? • Youth with multiple needs across home, school, community • Youth with multiple life domain needs • The adults in youth’s life are not effectively engaged in comprehensive planning (i. e. adults not getting along very well) What? The development of a very unique, individualized, strengthbased team & plan with the youth and family that is designed to improve quality of life as defined by the youth/family.
Individualized, Comprehensive Teams/Plans What Do Tertiary Plans include? Supports and interventions across multiple life domains and settings (i. e. behavior support plans, academic interventions, basic living supports, multi-agency strategies, family supports, community supports, etc. ) What’s Different? Natural supports and unique strengths are emphasized in team and plan development. Youth/family access, voice, ownership are critical features. Plans include supports for adults/family, as well as youth.
What is Wraparound? • Wraparound is a tool (e. g. a process) used to implement interagency systems of care in achieving better outcomes for youth and their families. • The wraparound process is similar to person-centered planning, the individualized Positive Behavior Support (PBS) planning process.
What is Wraparound? • Wraparound is a process for developing family-centered teams and plans that are strength and needs based – (not deficit based) – across multiple settings and life domains. • Wraparound plans include natural supports, are culturally relevant, practical and realistic.
Implementing Wraparound: Key Elements Needed for Success ü Engaging students, families & teachers ü Team development & team ownership ü Ensuring student/family/teacher voice q Getting to real (big) needs ü Effective interventions q Serious use of strengths q Natural supports q Focus on needs vs. services ü Monitoring progress & sustaining ü System support buy-in
What’s New in Wraparound? • • Skill set specificity Focus on intervention design/effectiveness Integration with school-wide PBS Phases to guide implementation/supervision Data-based decision-making Integrity/fidelity assessment (WIT) Tools to guide teams: – Home School Community – Education Information Tool
Wraparound Skill Sets 1. Identifying “big” needs (quality of life indicators) • “Student needs to feel others respect him” 2. Establish voice/ownership 3. Reframe blame 4. Recognize/prevent teams’ becoming immobilized by “setting events” 5. Getting to interventions that actually work 6. Integrate data-based decision-making into complex process (home-school-community)
Four Phases of Wraparound Implementation I. Team Preparation - Get people ready to be a team - Complete strengths/needs chats (baseline data) II. Initial Plan Development - Hold initial planning meetings (integrate data) - Develop a team “culture” (use data to establish voice) III. Plan Implementation & Refinement - Hold team meetings to review plans (ongoing data collection and use) - Modify, adapt & adjust team plan (based on data) IV. Plan Completion & Transition - Define good enough (Data-based decisionmaking) - “Unwrap”
“Bruce” • 5 th grade • Difficulty socially interacting with peers at school and in the community • Entered the 2007/08 school year with a Behavior Intervention Plan from the previous school year • DCFS involvement
Trauma • DCFS involvement • Removal from home, school, or community • Adults in conflict (domestic violence, parent in jail/prison, drug/alcohol abuse) • Medical concerns in family • Poverty
Tier 2/Secondary Supports • In November, after receiving an office referral, ‘Bruce’ began Check-In/Check-Out. • By January, data (SWIS & BEP) showed that student was not responding to CICO • Team modified his Check-In/Check-Out to a Check and Connect • School social worker initiated a simple Functional Behavior Assessment which guided the team to identify ‘days with P. E. ’ as very difficult days.
Behavioral Pathway Setting Event Antecedent Less Days with structured activities Gym that involve competition Problem Behavior Negative comments about activity and to peers leading to physical contact Consequence Function Sent out of P. E. class To escape setting
Brief Function-based Interventions Setting Event Supports • Add check • in before gym Antecedent Strategies Teaching Strategies • Behavior Lessons for all students about using respectful language with self and others and how to be a good sport • Teach social skills (getting along with others, friendship, • Acknowledgin g/rewarding problem solving, student when sportsmanship) uses new skills (asking for a • Teach how to drink of water approach gym teacher to ask for to leave, using a drink of water to respectful language with leave setting. peers, being a good sport, • Teach student etc. . ) how to re-enter and continue with activity • . More frequent activities with less focus on competition (parachute, 4 square, etc. . . ) • Pre-correct Consequence Supports
Better Access to Universal Systems • Secondary supports provided student with opportunities to use new skills and be acknowledged/rewarded at high frequency • Student was able to ‘earn’ his way into the monthly incentive program in April and May.
Tier 3/Tertiary Support • Wraparound process lead to identified community interests and LAN funding to support these • Student attended summer camp and is involved in football
Data-based Progress • By May, ‘Bruce’s’ reading skills improved by 19% (only gain since October) • Bruce had no additional office referrals after January. • Decreased risk of failure in home, school, and community placements
Student Disposition Tool
Andy • • • 6 th grade student Behavior difficulties and academic failure GPA 1. 25 (2 nd quarter) 6 ODRs (1 st two quarters) 15 Out-of-School Suspensions (safety) Family support needs –history of mobility with plan to move at the end current school year. Student moved nine times since first grade
Why move to Phase I wraparound instead of an FBA around one problem behavior? – Discussing problem behaviors would not have motivated family to participate on team. – Probably not the first time schools have approached family in this manner (“let’s talk about behavior”) – Bigger needs to work on to improve quality of life for youth and family – Open-ended conversation and use of wrap data tools helped engage family
Andy The team developed a mission statement: “Andy will be happy and confident in school”
Using Data to Keep the Team Moving “Celebrate Success of current plan” Andy
Andy • Andy was happy at school and his mother was pleased with the help that the wrap team provided. Teachers were pleased with the change in Andy. • Data is used to then identify “next steps”.
Using Data to Keep the Team Moving “Identify Ongoing Needs & Next Steps” Andy The check and connect intervention and other strategies helped Andy feel better about being at his school. The team identified unmet “needs”. The data is used to engage the team to continue working on a plan. Educational Information Tool
Andy • The family expressed that for the first time in their son’s school experience, they felt supported and optimistic. Andy’s mother wants him to continue at this school. • Andy’s team will help develop a plan that supports his independence from adults. 1 st/2 nd Qtr. ODRs 6 3 rd/4 th Qtr. 0 GPA 1. 25 OSS 15 Tardy 23 2. 30 0 6
Tertiary Level “Coaches” have to help establish capacity (fidelity) for wraparound: • Commitment of time • Commitment to “stay at table” • Willingness to regroup and be solution-focused • No judging or blaming • Time for listening to stories • Time for venting, validating • Establishing consensus • Voice of student/family in prioritizing • Establishing ownership
Moving Forward with Tier 2 and Tier 3
“Advanced Organizer: ” Current Status of District Implementation “Where is your district at in implementation of the full continuum of tier 2/ tier 3 supports? ” What direction and structure do districts provide to schools/principals to ensure that schools take an ‘appropriate’ (evidence-based, effective, efficient) path to achieve district outcomes?
Stages of Implementation occurs in stages: • • • Exploration Installation Initial Implementation Full Implementation Innovation Sustainability Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005 2 – 4 Years
Commitments for Success* Examples of District/Building Tier 2/3 Commitments : – Tier 2/3 Coaching FTE – Position Personnel to Facilitate Tertiary Intervention Teams for 35% of Students – Comprehensive Training and “Practice” – Data-based decision-making is part of all practices – Tertiary District Leadership Team – Review Special Education and Disproportionality Data – Review District Policies *See IL PBIS Network Commitment for Success Agreement
District/School Tertiary Commitments • District Commitment to review data, ongoing planning, support tertiary development at district and building levels • Designated Buildings/District Staff positioned to facilitate tertiary teams for individual students (3 -5%) • External Tertiary Coach/Coordinator positioned • Continuum of Skill Sets (training, guided learning, practice, coaching, consultation) • Commitment to use of Data at System and Practice Levels: – Going beyond ODRs (i. e. SSBD) – Self assessment/fidelity (i. e. CISS, Po. I) – System monitoring (SR-T, Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool, etc) – SIMEO-Student Outcomes (complex FBA/BIP and wraparound)
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 • Facilitators for complex FBA/BIP and wraparound teams
Tertiary Level System Components (Installation Stage) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. District Planning Team to address the system challenges and address the data trends to be changed. Building level tertiary systems planning team to monitor progress of tertiary plans and address challenges at building level. Tertiary Coaching (District level). Facilitators identified and “positioned” to facilitate Tier 3 teams and plans for 1 -5% of students. Comprehensive training and technical assistance plan. Data system/tools to be integrated into tertiary practices.
Initial Implementation Stage: • District Leadership Team meets at least quarterly • District Tertiary Coach. 5 fte (partially funded) • 3 or more buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems & Tertiary Systems Team mtgs. • 3 or more buildings with 1 -3 kids with 2 or more data points
Full implementation Stage: • District Leadership Team mtg. with a Tertiary focus at least quarterly • District Tertiary Coach 1 fte (partially funded) • 6 or more buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs. • 6 or more buildings with 3 or more kids with 2 or more data points
Innovation Stage: • District Leadership Team mtg. w. a Tertiary focus at least quarterly w. community & family representation • District Tertiary Coach 1 fte (fully funded) • 9 or more buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs. • 9 or more buildings with 1 -3 % of kids with 2 or more data points • Modified district policies/procedures • Specific strategies for blending related initiatives
Sustainability Stage: • Representative District Leadership Team mtg. with integrated Tertiary focus regularly • District Tertiary Coach/es 1 fte or more (fully funded) • 80% of buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs. • 80% of buildings with 1 -3 % of kids with 2 or more data points • Modified district policies/procedures • Specific strategies for blending related initiatives
Social Worker/School Psychologist Discussion of Role Changes Questions raised by Current Model Specifics of Proposed Model • What data /criteria are used for determining support services? • Review ODRs, CICO, grades, attendance, parent/teacher concerns • What data /criteria are used for monitoring student progress? • What data /criteria are used for determining whether student are prepared for exiting or transitioning from support services? • We model, reinforce, practice skills we want students to obtain (rate skill attainment) • Review ODRs, CICO, grades, attendance, parent/teacher concerns
Community Partners Roles in Teams • Participate in all three levels of systems teaming: Universal, Secondary, and Tertiary • Facilitate or co-facilitate tertiary teams around individual students • Facilitate or co-facilitate small groups with youth who have been identified in need of additional supports
Old Approach New Approach • Each school works out their own plan with Mental Health (MH) agency; • A MH counselor is housed in a school building 1 day a week to “see” students; • No data to decide on or monitor interventions; • “Hoping” that interventions are working; but not sure. • District has a plan for integrating MH at all buildings (based on community data as well as school data); • MH person participates in teams at all 3 tiers; • MH person leads small groups based on data; • MH person co-facilitates FBA/BIP or wrap individual teams for students.
Commitments Needed at Tertiary Level • District Commitment to review data, ongoing planning, support tertiary development at district and building levels • Designated Buildings/District Staff positioned to facilitate tertiary teams for individual students (3 -5%) • External Tertiary Coach/Coordinator positioned • Continuum of Skill Sets (training, guided learning, practice, coaching, consultation) • Commitment to use of Data at System and Practice Levels: – Going beyond ODRs (i. e. SSBD) – Self assessment/fidelity (i. e. CISS, Po. I) – System monitoring (SR-T, Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool, etc) – SIMEO-Student Outcomes (complex FBA/BIP and wraparound)
District-wide Tertiary Implementation Process • Ongoing District meeting (quarterly) – District outcomes – Capacity/sustainability – Scaling up (next set of schools) • Building meeting monthly – Check on all levels – Cross-planning with all levels – Effectiveness of practices (FBA/Wrap) • Tertiary Coaching Capacity • Facilitators for complex FBA/BIP and wraparound teams
Next Steps… • Assess current systems, data and practices at all 3 tiers in each school • Determine readiness for Tier 3 development/training per school • Establish structures to ensure accountability for delivering interventions • Initiate use of progress monitoring tools at school and district team levels • Assess communication need with whole staff about Tier 2/3 systems, data and practices •
Скачать презентацию Administrtive Planning Overview PBIS Systems of Support Tier 2 Secondary
bc432e455fe4ed1d8896c87913423007.ppt