school wide positive behavior - · pdf filerob horner university of oregon . national...
Post on 07-Mar-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
National Center on Response to Intervention
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION AND SCHOOL WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIORSCHOOL‐WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
Rob HornerUniversity of Oregon
www.pbis.org
GoalsNational Center on Response to Intervention
Goals
D fi f t f S h l id PBSDefine core features of School‐wide PBS
Define a framework for linking SWPBS and RTI
Present current descriptive data supporting implementation of academic and behavior supports within an RTI framework.
AssumptionsNational Center on Response to Intervention
Assumptions
Most participants are very knowledgeableMost participants are very knowledgeable about use of RTI for establishing early literacyliteracy
Some but not all participants are knowledgeable about school‐wide positiveknowledgeable about school‐wide positive behavior support
All are interested in efficient strategies forAll are interested in efficient strategies for linking educational improvement for literacy, behavior math writingbehavior, math, writing….
Main MessagesNational Center on Response to Intervention
Main Messages
Supporting social behavior is central to achievingSupporting social behavior is central to achieving academic gains.
RTI provides a common framework for implementing both social and academic behavior supportssupports
Implementation of any evidence‐based practice p y prequires a more coordinated focus than typically expected.
WHAT IS SWPBSNational Center on Response to Intervention
WHAT IS SWPBS
L iLogic
Core Features
Logic for School wide PBSNational Center on Response to Intervention
Logic for School‐wide PBS
Schools face a set of difficult challengesSchools face a set of difficult challenges today
Multiple expectations (Academic accomplishment, Social competence, Safety)competence, Safety)
Students arrive at school with widely differing understandings of what is socially acceptable.Traditional “get tough” and “zero tolerance” approaches g g ppare insufficient.
Individual student interventionsEffective but can’t meet needEffective, but can t meet need
School‐wide discipline systemsEstablish a social culture within which both social and academic success is more likelyacademic success is more likely
ContextNational Center on Response to Intervention
Context
Problem behavior continues to be the primary reason why individuals in our p y ysociety are excluded from school, home, recreation, community, and work., y,
Sobering Observation
Reduction in Incidence of Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities The Oregon Department of
Education has released graduation rates for all public high schools.
National Center on Response to Intervention
Sobering ObservationNearly one‐third of all high school students don't receive a diploma after four years of study.
"All organizations [and systems] are designed, intentionally or unwittingly, to
after four years of study.
by Betsy Hammond
Th O i M d J 29 2009g , y g y,
achieve precisely the results they get.Rise in Incidence of Autism
The OregonianMonday June 29, 2009,
R. Spencer Darling
Business Expert
© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
School wide PBSNational Center on Response to Intervention
School‐wide PBS
Build a continuum of supportsBuild a continuum of supports that begins with the whole school and extends to intensive, wraparound supportintensive, wraparound support for individual students and their families.
What is National Center on Response to Intervention School‐wide Positive Behavior Support?
School‐wide PBS is:School wide PBS is:A systems approach for establishing the social culture and behavioral supports needed for a school to be an effective learning environment for all students.
Evidence‐based features of SW‐PBSPreventionDefine and teach positive social expectationsAcknowledge positive behaviorArrange consistent consequences for problem behaviorArrange consistent consequences for problem behaviorOn‐going collection and use of data for decision‐makingContinuum of intensive, individual intervention supports. Implementation of the systems that support effectiveImplementation of the systems that support effective practices
E t bli hi S i l C ltNational Center on Response to Intervention
Establishing a Social Culture
Common Language
MEMBERSHIP
CommonC
MEMBERSHIP
Common Vision/Values
Common Experience
Create Effective Learning National Center on Response to Intervention Environments
P di blPredictable
ConsistentConsistent
Positive
Safe
Tertiary Prevention:Specialized
I di id li dSCHOOL‐WIDE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR IndividualizedSystems for Students with
High‐Risk Behavior~5%
POSITIVE BEHAVIORSUPPORT
Secondary Prevention:Specialized Group
Systems for Students with At‐Risk Behavior
~15%
Primary Prevention:School‐/Classroom‐Wide Systems forAll St d t
At‐Risk Behavior
All Students,Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
SWIS summary 08‐09 (Majors Only)National Center on Response to Intervention
SWIS summary 08 09 (Majors Only)3,410 schools; 1,737,432 students; 1,500,770 ODRs
Grade Range Number of Schools
Mean Enrollment per school
Mean ODRs per 100 per school day
K-6 2,162 450 .34 (sd = .49)
6-9 602 657 .85 (sd = 1.11)
9-12 215 887 1.27 (sd = 2.39)
K (8 12) 431 408 1 06 ( d 2 60)K-(8-12) 431 408 1.06 (sd = 2.60)
SWIS Mean Percentage Students (2008-09) (Majors Only)
National Center on Response to Intervention
( j y)
Students 6+
10% 22% 28%
70%
80%
90%
100% Students 2 to 5
Students 0 or 1
4%6%
3%7%
8% 11% 9%14% 17% 14%
40%
50%
60%
90% 90% 78% 72% 77%
0%
10%
20%
30%
0%
Pre-K K-6 6-9 9-12 K8-12
Schools N= 3 2162 602 215 431
Multi‐tier ModelAcademic Systems Behavioral Systems
1‐5% 1‐5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment‐based•High Intensity
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment‐based
5‐10% 5‐10%
•High Intensity•Of longer duration
•Intense, durable procedures
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at‐risk)•High efficiency
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at‐risk)•High efficiency•High efficiency
•Rapid response
g e c e cy•Rapid response
80‐90% 80‐90%Universal Interventions Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive
•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive
National Center on Response to Intervention
Dr. Laura Riffel
ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS
~5%
TERTIARY PREVENTION• Function‐based support• Wraparound• Person‐centered planning
TERTIARY PREVENTION•••
~15% SECONDARY PREVENTION• Check in/out
• Person‐centered planning
SECONDARY PREVENTION•
•
• Targeted social skills instruction• Peer‐based supports• Social skills club
•••
PRIMARY PREVENTION• Teach SW expectations• Proactive SW discipline
PRIMARY PREVENTION••• Positive reinforcement• Effective instruction• Parent engagement
•••
~80% of Students
Supporting Social Competence, Academic Achievement and Safety
OUTCOMES
y
School‐wide PBS
SupportingStudent B h iSupporting
PBS
BehaviorSupportingDecisionMaking
SYSTEMS
SupportingStaff Behavior
National Center on Response to Intervention
Define School‐wide ExpectationsNational Center on Response to Intervention for Social Behavior
Identify 3‐5 ExpectationsIdentify 3‐5 Expectations
Short statements
Positive Statements (what to do not what to avoidPositive Statements (what to do, not what to avoid doing)
MemorableMemorable
Examples:Be Respectful, Be Responsible, Be Safe, Be Kind, Be a p , p , , ,Friend, Be‐there‐be‐ready, Hands and feet to self, Respect self, others, property, Do your best, Follow directions of adultsdirections of adults
National Center on Response to Intervention
No GumNo HatsNo HatsNo BackpacksNo RunningNo RunningNo ViolenceNo DisruptionNo Disruption
National Center on Response to Intervention
eject violence
bey rulesbey rules
t b ll itop bullying
verybody “Stop It”
National Center on Response to Intervention
These banners are hanging in the commons area and in our gymnasium.
National Center on Response to Intervention
A few positive SW ExpectationsNational Center on Response to Intervention
“Phoenix Experience”
p p
National Center on Response to Intervention RespectSOAR
Achievement
Organization
Safe
National Center on Response to Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention
Deborah.Carter@unlv.edu
National Center on Response to Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention
Teach Behavioral ExpectationsNational Center on Response to Intervention
Teach Behavioral Expectations
Transform broad school‐wideTransform broad school wide Expectations into specific, observable behaviors.
Use the Expectations by Settings Matrix
Teach in the actual settings where behaviors are to occurTeach (a) the words, and (b) the actions.Build a social culture that is predictable, and focused on student success.
National Center on Response to Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention
Expectations & behavioral skills are taught & recognized in natural context
National Center on Response to Intervention
g
National Center on Response to Intervention
Linking Academic and Behavior National Center on Response to Intervention Supports
• Effective school‐wide and classroom wideEffective school wide and classroom wide behavior support is linked to increased academic engagementacademic engagement.
• Improved academic engagement with effective instruction is linked to improvedeffective instruction is linked to improved academic outcomes.
Th d d i l• The systems needed to implement effective academic supports and effective b h i i ilbehavior supports are very similar.
Alignment for Systems change
Early Intervention
ionPrimary
Prevention
Literacy
/Prevent
Universal Screening
Wraparound
MEN
T
vention/Multi‐tiered
Support
lMath
Family SupportALIGNM
to IntervEarly
Intervention
Progress
Behavior Support
espo
nse tg
Monitoring
Systems to s pport
© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
Re
Student Outcomes
support practices
States Implementing SWPBSNational Center on Response to Intervention 10,000+ schools in 48 states
1200
1000
ols Illinois
600
800
er of Schoo
400Num
be
0
200
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71States
National Center on Response to Intervention
North CarolinaP iti B h i S t I iti tiPositive Behavior Support Initiative
February 2009February 2009
Heather R. ReynoldsNC Department of Public InstructionNC Department of Public Instruction
Bob AlgozzineBehavior and Reading Improvement Center
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/positivebehavior/
North CarolinaPositive Behavior Support InitiativeNational Center
on Response to Intervention
Positive Behavior Support Initiative
State PBS CoordinatorState PBS CoordinatorHeather R Reynolds
Dr. Bob Algozzine
North Carolina Positive Behavior Support InitiativeNon‐PBS
National Center on Response to Intervention
Levels of behavior risk in100
Office Discipline Referral Risk in North Carolina
Comparison
behavior risk in schools implementing PBS were comparable to70
80
90
comparable to widely-accepted expectations and better than those in comparison
50
60
70
in comparison schools not systematically implementing PBS20
30
40
PBS.
2004‐05 (N=21) 2005‐06 (N=35) 2006‐07 (N=66) 2007‐08 (N=110) Comparison (N=5)
6+ ODR 5 3 4 4 10
0
10
6+ ODR 5 3 4 4 10
2‐5 ODR 12 9 11 11 23
0‐1 ODR 83 88 85 85 67
Dr. Bob Algozzine
North CarolinaPositive Behavior Support Initiativear
d
National Center on Response to Intervention
Positive Behavior Support Initiative100
mic Stand
a
85
90
95
S h l i h L
ate Acade
m
75
80
85
Reading
Schools with Low ODRs and High
Academic Outcomes
Meetin
g St
65
70
EOG
Reading
Linear (Reading)
rxy = ‐.44(n = 36)
f Stude
nts M
55
60
oportio
n of
50
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
ODRs
Dr. Bob AlgozzineOffice Discipline Referrals per 100 Students
Pro
National Center on Response to Intervention
Steve Goodmansgoodman@oaisd.orgwww.cenmi.org/miblsi
National Center on Response to Intervention
Participating SchoolsParticipating Schools2004 Schools (21)2005 Schools (31)
2000 Model Demonstration Schools (5)The strategies and
organization for initial ( )2006 Schools (50)2007 Schools (165)2008 Schools (95)2009 Schools (150*)
implementation need to change to meet the
Total of 512 schools in collaboration with 45 of 57 ISDs
needs of larger scale implementation.
collaboration with 45 of 57 ISDs (79%)
Average Major Discipline Referral per 100 Students by Cohort
National Center on Response to Intervention
y
160
180
120
140
80
100
40
60
0
20
40
0Cohort 1 (n=15) Cohort 2 (n=19) Cohort 3 (n=34) Cohort 4
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Percent of Students meeting DIBELS Spring Benchmarkfor Cohorts 1 ‐ 4 (Combined Grades)
90%
100% Spring ’09: 62,608 students Spring ’09: 62,608 students assessed in cohorts 1 assessed in cohorts 1 ‐‐ 44
60%
70%
80% 5,943 5,943 studentsstudentsassessedassessed
8,330 8,330 studentsstudentsassessedassessed
16,078 16,078 studentsstudentsassessedassessed
32,257 32,257 studentsstudentsassessedassessed
40%
50%
60%
20%
30%
40%
0%
10%
Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Cohort 4
2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09
Percent of Students at DIBELS Intensive Level across year by CohortNational Center
on Response to Intervention
Level across year by Cohort30%
entio
n
20%
25%
ensive Interv
15%
t DIBELS Inte
Level
10%
f Stude
nts at
0%
5%
Percent o
f
0%
Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Cohort 4
2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09
Participating School Example: Fourth Grade Reading MEAP Results
90%100% Began MiBLSi
Implementation
50%60%70%80%90% Implementation
10%20%30%40%
0%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YearSchool District
National Center on Response to Intervention
The Effects of School‐wide PBS ithi R d i d C t lwithin a Randomized Control
Effectiveness Trial
Rob Horner, George Sugai, Keith Smolkowski, Lucille Eber, Jean Nakasato, Anne Todd,
dJody Esperansa
OSEP TA Center on Positive Behavior Support
www.pbis.orgJournal of Positive Behavior Intervention
RTI as the framework for Linking National Center on Response to Intervention SWPBS and Early Literacy
• Randomized Control Trials
• RTI Self‐assessment
• Single‐case studiesstudies
Randomized Controlled TrialNational Center on Response to Intervention
Randomized Controlled Trial(Preliminary Findings)
Assessment Time Period
Group T 1 T 2 T 3
Treatment (N = 30) O X O O
Control/Delay (N = 30) O O X O
(T = time (by year), O = observation, X = implementation of SWPBS training)
Finding #1: Implementation by regular personnelNational Center on Response to InterventionMean SET score (Total) [Bold indicates post intervention]
T1 T2 T3
Treatment Group
.381N = 33
.785N = 30
.823N = 30
Control/Delay Group
.388N= 26
.459N= 27
.640N= 23
Random coefficients analysis (Murray, 1998; Singer & Willett, 2003):
Time X Condition p < . 0001; r = .67; d = 1.78Random coefficients analysis (Murray, 1998; Singer & Willett, 2003): Time X Condition p < . 0001; r = .67; d = 1.78
Results: With training by regular state trainers, schools are bl t i l t SWPBS t it iNational Center
on Response to Intervention
able to implement SWPBS to criterion.
Implementation of SWPBS
Initial (N = 33) Delayed (N = 28)
Random coefficients analysis: p < 0001; d 1 78
0.7
0.8
0.9Random coefficients analysis: p <.0001; d = 1.78
l l
0 4
0.5
0.6
SET
Sco
res Initial
TrainingDelayTraining
* *
0 1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Mea
n S * *
PBSPBSPBS
0
0.1
T1 T2 T3
Finding #2: SWPBS is associated with increased perception of safety: School Safety Survey: RiskNational Center
on Response to Intervention
perception of safety: School Safety Survey: Risk Factor
T1 T2 T3
Treatment Group
.370N= 24
.344N = 29
.343N = 25
Control/Delay Group
.387N = 19
.415N= 24
.358N = 20Group N = 19 N= 24 N = 20
Time X Condition p = .0154 r = ‐ .40 d = ‐ .86
Results: Perceived Social Risk Factors decreased when SWPBS was implemented with fidelityNational Center
on Response to Intervention
was implemented with fidelity.
Perceived Risk Factor Score from School Safety Survey
0.45
es
Initial (N = 24) Delay (N = 19)
Random coefficients analysis p = .0154; d = ‐.86
0 3
0.35
0.4
y Ri
sk S
core
0.2
0.25
0.3
Safe
ty S
urve
y
* *
0.05
0.1
0.15
an S
choo
l S
PBS PBS PBS
0T1 T2 T3
Mea
Finding #3: SWPBS associated with increase in proportion of students meeting state readingNational Center
on Response to Intervention
proportion of students meeting state reading standard
T1 T2 T3
Treatment Group
.455N = 33
.529N= 31
.536N = 31
Control/Delay Group
.38N = 28
.402N= 27
.436N= 23
T2 Treatment vs Control: p = 032 r = 28 d = 58T2 Treatment vs. Control: p .032 r .28 d .58
Results: The percentage of 3rd graders meeting the state National Center on Response to Interventionreading standard increased with SWPBS implementation.
P t f 3 d G d ti St t R di St d dPercentage of 3rd Graders meeting State Reading Standard
60 00%ing
Initial (N = 33) Delay ( N= 28)
N.S. p = .032; d = .58
50.00%
60.00%
ng s
tate
read
i
30.00%
40.00%
ader
s m
eetin
stan
dard * *
10.00%
20.00%
age
of 3
rd G
ra s
PBS PBSPBS
0.00%T1 T2 T3Pe
rcen
ta
Li ki PBS d E l LiNational Center on Response to Intervention
Linking PBS and Early Literacy
Continuum of SupportContinuum of Support PracticesEmphasis on “Foundation pSupports” and investment in prevention.Emphasis on the organizational systemsEmphasis on the organizational systems needed to implement practices with fidelity and durability.Collection and use of data for decision‐making
Li ki RTI d PBSNational Center on Response to Intervention
Linking RTI and PBS
• 1. Effective and Efficient Foundation P ti
• Effective Curriculum
• Unambiguous Practices– Establishing a Universal System of
Instruction
• Adequate intensityUniversal System of Support • Reward System
• Error Correction System
Li ki RTI d PBSNational Center on Response to Intervention
Linking RTI and PBS
• 2 Universal Screening • Collect information• 2. Universal Screening • Collect information on all students at least twice a yeary
• Use data for decision‐making
• 2 or more ODRs
• SSBD is used in Illinois
12
Cumulative Mean ODRs Per Month for 325+ Elementary Schools 08 09National Center
on Response to Intervention
8
10
DRs
for 325+ Elementary Schools 08‐09
6
8
0‐1
Mean OD
4
2‐5
6+
ulative M
2Cum
0
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jennifer Frank, Kent McIntosh, Seth May
Li ki RTI d PBSNational Center on Response to Intervention
Linking RTI and PBS
• Targeted interventions for students “at risk”
• 3. Continuum of Evidence‐based
• Intensive, Individualized
f
Practices
interventions for students with more significant needssignificant needs
• Early Intervention
Li ki RTI d PBSNational Center on Response to Intervention
Linking RTI and PBS• 4. Progress • Collection of data on a4. Progress Monitoring
Collection of data on a monthly, weekly, daily rate
• Use of data for decision‐making
Li ki RTI d PBSNational Center on Response to Intervention
5 Fid lit M it i A i th
Linking RTI and PBS
• 5. Fidelity Monitoring • Assessing the extent to which we areIowa Checklist 01-05 PK-6 % Fully & Partially Implemented
Adams Elementary SchoolIndividual School Team Checklist Data we are
implementing what we claim to
Iowa Checklist 01-05, PK-6 % Fully & Partially Implemented
70%
80%
90%
100%
Team ChecklistTeam Checklist 03-04
80
100
Individual School Team Checklist Data
implement
• Use of the data for 20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
20
40
60
decision‐making0%
10%
05-A
ug-0
3
05-N
ov-0
3
23-F
eb-0
4
22-J
an-0
4
01-F
eb-0
5
02-J
un-0
5
12-A
ug-0
4
24-N
ov-0
4
01-M
ar-0
5
12-S
ep-0
2
31-O
ct-0
2
28-F
eb-0
3
21-A
pr-0
3
01-S
ep-0
3
05-N
ov-0
3
05-A
ug-0
3
11-S
ep-0
3
07-N
ov-0
3
06-F
eb-0
4
01-S
ep-0
3
01-N
ov-0
3
01-M
ar-0
4
03-A
ug-0
4
08-N
ov-0
4
08-M
ar-0
5
03-J
un-0
5
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7
Start Up Full Implementation Start Up Part Implementation
0Commit Team Self-Assess Expect.
Define Expect.Teach
RewardsSystem
ViolationsSystem
Info. Function % ItemsImplemented
% TotalPoints
Aug. '03 Nov. '03
Implications for Systems ChangeNational Center on Response to Intervention
Implications for Systems Change
District policyDistrict policyClear statement of values, expectations, outcomes
Ability to conduct universal screening and progress monitoring assessments
District provides efficient options for universal screening and progress monitoring measures
Recruitment and hiringExpectations defined in job announcements
P f i l d l tProfessional developmentFocused strategies for staff development in core skills
Discipline Foundation Policy: National Center on Response to Intervention LAUSD
School‐Wide Positive Behavior SupportNUMBER: BUL‐3638.0ISSUER: Donnalyn Jaque‐Antón, Executive Officer, Educational ServicesDATE: March 27, 2007
POLICY:Every student, pre‐school through adult, has the right to be educated in a safe,respectful and welcoming environment. Every educator has the right to teach in anatmosphere free from disruption and obstacles that impede learning. This will beachieved through the adoption and implementation of a consistent school‐wide positive behavior support and discipline plan for every school in LAUSD.
All school level discipline plans will be consistent with the Culture of Discipline: Guiding Principles for the School Community (Attachment A) and Culture ofGuiding Principles for the School Community (Attachment A) and Culture of Discipline: Student Expectations (Attachment B). This will include: teaching school rules and social‐emotional skills; reinforcing appropriate student behavior; using effective classroom management and positive behavior support strategies by providing early intervention for misconduct and appropriate use of consequences.
Jeff Sprague, Nancy Franklin, Laura Zeff
Implications for Systems ChangeNational Center on Response to Intervention
Implications for Systems Change
A l l tiAnnual evaluationsExpectations assessed as part of annual evaluationsevaluations
Recruitment of individuals with training, coaching and implementation skillscoaching, and implementation skills
Advanced skills in literacy supports
Advanced skills in behavior supportsAdvanced skills in behavior supports
Science Values
Practices that work
Practices that affect quality of life
PBIS
VisionPractices thatPractices that are practical, durable and available
National Center on Response to Intervention Questions, Comments
top related