Session C-3 PBIS National Forum

October 11, 2007

Response to Intervention (RtI) Model of Continuum of Support:

The Kansas-Illinois Tertiary

Demonstration Center

Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas

Lucille Eber, IL PBIS Network

K-I Center Team Leaders

• Jamie Bezdek, University of Kansas• Kimberli Breen, IL PBIS Network• Jen Rose, Loyola University-IL PBIS Network• Amy McCart, University of Kansas

Evaluation :Kelly Hyde (SIMEO)Holly Lewandowski (PoI and SWIS data)

Big Ideas for this Session

1. How the K-I Center is applying the RtI approach to both behavior and academics to ensure tertiary capacity

2. Year One implementation experiences and data from IL

3. What the K-I Center hope to “deliver” in terms of knowledge, tools etc.

Does building a school-wide system of PBIS increase school’s abilities to effectively educate students with more complex needs?

What systems, data and practice structures are

needed to ensure that positive behavior support being applied in needed dosage for ALL students?

Key Questions

Core Features of a Response to Intervention (RtI) 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

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Tertiary Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity

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

Secondary Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response•Small Group Interventions• Some Individualizing

Secondary Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response• Small Group Interventions• Some Individualizing

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

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

Designing School-Wide Systems for Student SuccessA Response to Intervention (RtI) Model

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Adapted from “What is schoo-wide PBS?” OSEPTechnical assistance on positive behavioralInterventions and supports.Accessed at http://www.pbis.org/schoolwide.htm

Capacity to go beyond ODR’s….

• Apply RtI process to mental health “status”– SSBD– Teen Screen– Other?

• Engage community partners and families in a 3-tiered process

• Explore other data points to consider/pursue

Positive Behavior Interventions & SupportsA Response to Intervention (RtI) Model

Universal School-Wide Assessment

School-Wide Prevention Systems

Secondary

Tertiary

SWIS & other

School-wide data

BEP & group

Intervention data

SIMEO tools: HSC-T, RD-T

Small Group Interventions

In

terv

entio

nAssessment

Revised August, 2007 IL-PBISAdapted from T. Scott, 2004

Functional assessment tools/Observations/scatter plots etc.

Group interventions withAn individualized focus

Simple FBA/BIP

Multiple-domain FBA/BIP

Wraparound

Continuum of Support for Secondary-Tertiary Level

Systems1. Group interventions (BEP, Check & Connect,

social or academic skills groups, tutor/homework clubs, etc)

2. Group Intervention with a unique feature for an individual student

3. Individualized function based behavior support plan for a student focused on one specific behavior

4. Behavior Support Plan across settings (i.e.: home and school)

5. Wraparound: More complex and comprehensive plan that address multiple life domain issues across home, school and community (i.e. basic needs, MH treatment, as well as behavior/academic interventions)

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 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• Wraparound Facilitators

Areas for District Action Planning:

1. District Data Review: NCLB, SP Ed, etc

2. Integrating Related initiatives: ASPIRE, SEL, CHOICES, IATTAP

3. New Assessment Tools: WIT/SSBD/SSBS

4. Repositioning Staff Roles (e.g. team facilitation)

5. Monitoring Secondary/Tertiary system Development (including use of SIMEO)

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

Tertiary Tier: Systems

Systems1. Team based problem solving

• District, Building @ all 3 tiers

2. Data-based decision making system • SIMEO

3. Sustainability focus • redefining roles, district data review, etc.

4. Systematic Screening• Beyond ODR’s

Tertiary Tier: Data

Data 1. Data used for engagement and action

planning with team

2. Data tools are strengths/needs based

3. Multiple perspectives and settings captured in data

4. Show small increments of change at team meetings

Tertiary Tier: Practices

Practices1. Youth having access to all levels of SWPBS 2. Engagement and team development are

critical elements3. Team facilitation is essential skill set4. Team development process (w/a) creates

ownership/context for interventions5. Interventions (FBA/BIP) blended into w/a plan 6. Assess/monitor fidelity with families

Secondary Training Events

A Two Year Comparison

0

200

400

600

800

2005-06 2006-07

# p

art

icip

an

ts

0

10

2030

40

50

Tra

inin

gs

Secondary Participants

Secondary Trainings

Tertiary Training Events

A Two Year Comparison

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2005-06 2006-07

# p

art

icip

an

ts

0

10

20

30

Tra

inin

gs

Tertiary Participants

Tertiary Trainings

Tertiary Tier: Building Level Planning Team

1. Review SWIS data for individual students• Review their access to universal/secondary

2. Review progress/needs of team facilitators• Trouble-shoot resources/supports • Follows-up with District Leadership Team

3. Communicates with district team• resources & supports needed for individual plans• Shares data/progress

A Systemic Definition of “Tertiary”:

If a uniquely designed team is required to get enough of an effect to improve quality of life of youth/family:– Complex FBA/BIP– Key “players” need to be engaged– Highly individualized plan across home,

school, and community

Tertiary Tier : Student Level

1. Full access to universal & secondary level supports (instruction, reinforcers, BEP, etc.)

2. Active wraparound plan with facilitator

3. Wraparound team mtgs. occurring regularly

4. Principal & other pertinent staff informed of strategies to ensure success (discipline, communication, supports, etc.)

5. Use of data for ongoing progress-monitoring

District and Building Progress

• Tertiary Coaches Allocated

• Intensive Skill Development

• Regular District and Building Meetings

• Secondary/tertiary Systems being Refined

• Hard look at data:– Are current interventions working?– How are kids with IEP’s doing?– What does our LRE (EE) data look like?

A Focus on Tertiary Impacts Implementation at All Levels

 • Notable progress was observed in tertiary demo schools’

implementation of PBIS.

• Building-based teams met frequently to action plan and significant gains were made during year one.

• The Illinois PBIS Phases of Implementation Tool is

being used by schools to self-assess their systems, data and practices and guide their implementation.

• As schools invest in developing tertiary structures, they

are also taking steps to improve their universal and secondary systems.

0

1

2

3

2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter

below

= 0

phas

e III

= 3

Universal Secondary Tertiary

Illinois Phases of Implementation: Tertiary Demo

Schools (n=3)

2006-07 IL School Profile Data (n=195)

• 125 Schools* reported 322 Small Group and Individual interventions rated “Medium”, “High” or “Very High” with an average number of 2.6 interventions reported per school

*Does not include Tertiary Demonstration Schools

Tertiary Demonstration School IL School Profile Data 2006-07

• 13 TDS reported 43 Small Group and Individual interventions rated “Medium”, “High” or “Very High” with an average number of 3.3 interventions per school

Jack Benny Middle School, Waukegan

• Of 14 students placed on Check and Connect in November 2006, seven students showed progress in only three weeks.

• These seven students decreased their ODRs from a total of 19 in ten weeks to a total of one ODR after three weeks of the intervention.

 

More Intensive Intervention Needed?

 • A student with four ODRs was not experiencing

success with Check and Connect. • After individualizing the intervention by allowing

her to choose her Check and Connect person, she has received only one ODR, and teachers have observed improvement in her behavior.

• This student’s progress will continue to be monitored, but it seems that a more intensive intervention may not be needed at this time.

At Jefferson Middle School, Springfield School District 186, 14 of 22 students who began a Check and Connect intervention in 2006-07 due to high rates of office discipline referrals (ODRs) in 2005-06 are showing improvement.

Group Intervention Reduces Behavior Problems for Students At-Risk

• Total ODRs from last year to first semester this year dropped significantly for these eight students (from 193 to 26).

• 8 students received only five or fewer ODRs in the first semester of this year

26

96.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005-06 Avg perSemester

2006-07 First Semester

Num

ber of O

DRs

73%

ODRs for Eight Students on Check & Connect

Jefferson Middle School, Springfield District 186

Can teams use data-based decision-making to prioritize needs, design strategies, & monitor progress of the child/family team?

more efficient teams, meetings, and plans? less reactive (emotion-based) actions? more strategic actions?more effective outcomes?longer-term commitment to maintain success?

DATA: The BIG Question

Summary of FY 2007SIMEO Student Demographics-Study Cohort

→ Age: Range in age from 6-17 years; Mean Age-10.9

→ Grade: 50% (13) in 4-6 grades

→ General Ed: 65% (17) in General Ed; 35% (9) in Special Ed placements

→ Disabilities: 23% (6)-SLD, 7% (2)-ED

→ Ed Placement: 58% (15) in General Ed Placement 100% of day

→ Risk of Placement Failure: 85% (22) at-risk of failing one or more placements

Summary of FY 2007Number of Team Meeting Held: Time 1 verses Time 2

Study Cohort

1014

243

109

0

5

10

15

20

No MeetingsHeld

OneMeeting

Held

TwoMeetings

Held

ThreeMeetings

Held

Four orMore

MeetingsHeld

Stu

den

ts

Time1

Time2

N=26

Summary of FY 2007Data Use at Team Meetings: Time 1 verses Time 2

Study Cohort

15

4

22

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Time 1 Time 2

Stu

den

ts

Data Used At Meetings Data Not Used at Meetings

N=26

Summary of FY 2007 Behavior Frequency Count: Time 1 verses Time 2

Study Cohort

125

50

272911

190

25

50

75

100

125

150

Time1 Time 2

Cu

mu

lati

ve I

nci

den

ce

ODR ISS OSSN=26

Summary of FY 2007Placement Risk: Change Over Time

Study Cohort

2.62.5

1.63

2.11 2.23

1.5

1.921.84

1.75

11.251.5

1.752

2.252.5

2.753

3.253.5

3.754

Baseline Time2 Time 3

School Home Community

N=8N=26N=26

High Risk

No Risk

Minimal Risk

Moderate Risk

Red Numbers = Statistically Significant Changes

School Time 2 to Time 3: t=3.211, df=7, p<.015

Home Time 2 to Time 3: t=3.055, df=7, p<.018

Strengths-Needs SIMEO Data Guides Team to More Effective Interventions

 A seventh grade student was assigned an escort as an intervention due to inappropriate behavior during passing periods in the hallways

• The intervention was not successful and problem behavior escalated.

• From the family’s perspective, the student needed "to feel accepted" and needed "to learn how to seek attention appropriately".

• They switched to proactive, instructional interventions focused on helping the student have friends and feel like she belonged.

• Community-based activities were arranged to further enhance her socialization opportunities during the summer.

1

2

3

4

Home School Community

1=hi

gh

need

4=

high

stre

ngth

Behavioral: Seeks attention in appropriate ways

Cultural/Spiritual: Feels accepted

Emotional Functioning: Knows how to ask for help

Social Relationships: Gets along with adults

Student Baseline Data for Home/School/Community Tool

Family Engagement Results in Improved Student Outcomes

 A sixth grader with a family history of high mobility, poor grades, tardies and suspensions was referred to wraparound.

• As the family became engaged through the wraparound process, interventions previously attempted, including a Check and Connect program, began to show success.

• In FY07, tardies decreased from 23 in third quarter to six in fourth quarter;

• His GPA went from 1.25 in second quarter to 2.3 in third quarter; and his suspensions dropped from 15 first semester to zero second semester.

• The student’s family reported that this was the first time the student had experienced success at school and was “walking with his head up.”

• School staff reported that the student was coming in at lunch to get extra help from his teachers and trying harder to succeed.

 

1

2

3

4

Baseline Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Baseline Time 2

1= h

igh

need

4=

hig

h st

reng

th

Social: Respects adults in authority Emotional: Feels he belongs

Home School Community

Student Data for Home/School/Community Tool

Example of an Activity to Assess Current Tertiary Practices

Assessing intervention history:

• Often, school staff spend a lot of time “admiring the problem”

• Absence of a systematic, data-based approach limits potential for successful intervention

• Use the following activity to demonstrate the importance of using data to make decisions

Assessing Intervention HistoryActivity description:

1. Visualize a student that you’re currently considering for a wrap.

2. List the interventions that have been attempted with this student.

3. List whether these interventions have been successful or not.

4. Provide a rationale for why each intervention did or did not succeed.

5. Complete a Referral Disposition Tool (RD-T) for a student, then hypothesize/list big need statements.

6. Complete Home School Community Tool (HSC-T) for the same student. Revise big need statements, if necessary.

Screening as Proactive Process (SSBD)

How do you currently identify students at-risk?

Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders

• Gating approach (3 “gates” of assessment; class-wide, small group, individual)

• Students pro-actively assigned to interventions

• Student growth/change measured

• How might you apply a screening process?

.

Building Tertiary Capacity in Schools

Establish full-continuum of PBIS in schools

Identify and train wraparound facilitators

Train other school personnel about wraparound

Ongoing practice refinement & skill

development

Review data: outcomes of teams and plans

New Integrity Tools being (in development)

• The IS-SET

• The WI-T

Challenges at Tertiary Tier

• Requires complex skills

• Need to find “internalizers” sooner (SSBD)

• Data is buried in family/student stories

• Capacity to stay “at the table” long enough to effect change – Engage key players, – Establish voice and ownership– Translate stories into data to guide plans

Building Tertiary Capacity in Schools

Establish full-continuum of PBIS in schools

Identify and train wraparound facilitators

Train other school personnel about wraparound

Ongoing practice refinement & skill

development

Review data: outcomes of teams and plans