may 2008 ensuring success for students with or at-risk of emotional/behavioral and other...
Post on 27-Mar-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
May 2008
Ensuring Success for Students with or at-risk of Emotional/Behavioral
and other Disabilities through School-wide PBIS:
The IL PBIS Tertiary Demonstration Process
Lucille EberIL PBIS Network
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
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
1-5% 1-5%
5-10% 5-10%
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
School-Wide Systems for Student Success
A Response to Intervention Model
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 (CICO, SSI, etc)
In
terv
entio
nAssessment
Revised March 2008 IL-PBISAdapted from T. Scott, 2004
Functional assessment tools/Observations/scatter plots etc.
Group interventions withindividualized focus (CnC, etc)
Simple individual interventions(Simple FBA/BIP, schedule/curriculum changes, etc)
Multiple-domain FBA/BIP
Wraparound
3.5.08
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
Continuum of Support for Secondary-Tertiary Level
Systems1. Group interventions (BEP, social or academic skills
groups, tutor/homework clubs, etc)2. Group Intervention with a unique feature for an
individual student, (BEP individualized into a Check & Connect; mentoring/tutoring, etc.)
3. Simple Individualized Function Based Behavior Support Plan for a student focused on one specific behavior (simple FBA/BIP-one behavior; curriculum adjustment; schedule or other environmental adjustments, etc)
4. Complex Function-based Behavior Support Plan across settings (i.e.: FBA/BIP home and school and/or community)
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) multiple behaviors
3.8.08
Illinois PBIS Schools
74%
14%
12%
83%
12%
5%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% o
f stu
de
nts
with
OD
Rs
Partia lly Implementing
(n=58)
Fully Implementing (n=141)
0-1 ODRs 2-5 ODRs 6+ ODRs
Mean Percentage of Students with Major ODRs 2006-07, Statewide
The differences between fully and partially implementing schools were statistically significant in all three levels of ODRs
(0-1 ODR, Mann-Whitney U=3035.0, p=0.004; 2-5 ODR, Mann-Whitney U=3050.0, p=0.005; 6+ODR, Mann-Whitney U=3062.0, p=0.005).
149170
187151
195
0
50
100
150
200
250
2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
Years
Num
ber
of s
cho
ols
Schools Completing Profiles
# of Schools Reporting Small Group and Indiv idual Interventions
Illinois PBIS Schools
Illinois PBIS Schools Completing School Profile Forms &
Implementing Secondary/Tertiary Interventions across Five
Years
Comparison of Partial & Fully Implementing
Schools
on Suspensions/Expulsions FY07 per 100 Students11.2
5.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Partial (n=58) Full (n=140)
Implementation
Num
be
r of s
usp
ens
ions
pe
r 100
st
ude
nts
Illinois PBIS Schools
Comparing School Safety Survey
Partial vs. Full Implementation
4641
73 78
0
20
40
60
80
100
Partial (n=20) Full 80/80 (n=62)
Partial vs Full Implementation
Perc
enta
ge o
f Risk
and
p
rote
ctio
n fa
cto
r
Risk factor Protection factor
Illinois PBIS Schools
Illinois PBIS Schools
59.3
68.4
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
Partial (n = 89
schools)
Full (n = 120
schools)
Level of PBIS Implementation
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of st
ud
ents
The difference between the two types of schools was significant (t=3.72, df=159, p<0.001).
Illinois 2005-06 Proportion of Students who Meet
or Exceed Third Grade ISAT Reading Standard
Illinois PBIS Schools
65.6
86.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Partial (n = 160
schools)
Full (n = 157 schools)
Level of PBIS implementation
Perc
en
tag
e o
f sc
ho
ols
tha
t m
et
AYP
Findings suggest that fully implementing PBIS schools met AYP at a significantly higher percentage than partially implementing schools (χ2=19.17, df=1,
p<.001).
Illinois 2005-06 Proportion of Schools
that Met AYP
Small Group & Individual Interventions Rated "High" or
"Very High" in Fully & Partially Implementing PBIS
Schools 2006-07142
42
0
50
100
150
Fully Implementing
Schools (n= 70 schools)
Partia lly Implementing
Schools (n= 24 schools)
Level of implementation
Nu
mb
er o
f in
terv
en
tion
Illinois PBIS Schools
Small Group Interventions Rated as "Very High” &
"High“ in
Fully & Partially Implementing PBIS Schools 2006-07 73
21
010203040
50607080
Fully implementing (n = 47
schools)
Partially implementing (n = 14
schools)
Level of implementation
Num
ber o
f inte
rve
ntio
ns
Illinois PBIS Schools
Individual Interventions Rated “Very High” & “High”
in Fully & Partially Implementing PBIS Schools 2006-07
69
21
010
2030
40506070
80
Fully implementing (n = 44
schools)
Partially implementing (n = 14
schools)
Level of implementation
Nu
mb
er o
f in
terv
en
tion
s
Illinois PBIS Schools
Secondary Training Events A Two Year Comparison
0
200
400
600
800
2005-06 2006-07
# p
artic
ipa
nts
0
20
40
60
Tra
inin
gs
Secondary Participants
Secondary Trainings
Tertiary Training EventsA Two Year Comparison
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2005-06 2006-07
# p
artic
ipa
nts
0
10
20
30
Tra
inin
gs
Tertiary Participants
Tertiary Trainings
Building Tertiary Capacity in Schools
• Establish full-continuum of PBIS in schools
• Identify/train team facilitators (FBA/BIP, wraparound)
• Train other school personnel about wraparound
• Ongoing practice refinement & skill
development
• Review data: outcomes of teams and plansIL PBIS Network
A Focus on Tertiary Impacts Implementation at All Levels
• 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 also took steps to improve their universal and secondary systems.
End of Year One-June 07
Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases Simple Secondary Interventions
36
551
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Aug to Nov 2006 Aug to Nov 2007
num
be
r o
f st
ud
ents
2-5 ODRs 6+ ODRs CICO*
*CICO = Check in, Check Out
IL Tertiary Demo
Ensuring Capacity at All 3 Tiers
• Begin assessment and development of secondary and tertiary tiers at start-up of universal– Assess resources and current practices
(specialized services)– Review current outcomes of students with higher
level needs– Position personnel to guide changes in practice– Begin planning and training with select personnel
• All 3 tiers addressed at all district meetings and at every training
Requirements for IL Tertiary Demos
• District Commitment• Designated Buildings/District Staff• External Tertiary Coach/Coordinator• Continuum of Skill Sets (training, guided
learning, practice, coaching, consultation)• Commitment to use of Data System
– Going beyond ODR’s (i.e. SSBD)– Self assessment/fidelity– SIMEO-Student Outcomes
District-wide Secondary/Tertiary
Implementation Process• District meeting quarterly
– District outcomes– Capacity/sustainability– Other schools/staff
• Building meeting monthly– Check on all levels– Cross-planning with all levels– Effectiveness of practices (CICO/BIP/Wrap, etc)
• Secondary/Tertiary Coaching Capacity• Wraparound Facilitators
System Data to Consider• EE Data (formerly known as 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– DCFS
Ongoing Self–Assessment of Secondary/Tertiary Implementation
Building Level:• IL Phases of Implementation (PoI) Tool • IL Secondary/Tertiary Intervention Tracking Tool• Sp. Ed Referral Data• Suspensions/Expulsions/Placements (ongoing)• Aggregate Individual Student Data (IL SIMEO data)• LRE Data trends• Subgroup data (academic, discipline, Sp. Ed. Referral, LRE, etc)
District Level:• Referral to Sp.Ed. Data• LRE Data (aggregate and by building)• IL Out-of-Home-School-Tracking Tool (multiple sorts)• Aggregate SIMEO data• Aggregate PoI Data
Educational Environment Data (EE)
• A key item in IL State Performance Plan for feds
• More districts to be “flagged” for monitoring
• Tertiary demo activities focus on IL SPP data points
Changes in Least Restrictive Environment
Dewey Elementary School
27
45
16
5
78%60%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2003-04 2004-05
num
be
r stu
de
nts
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ISA
T sc
ore
students in SPED < 21% of day students in SPED 21-60% of day ISAT scores
• First step is accessing the data
• Next is discussing with range of stakeholders and determining accuracy or how to make it accurate
• Possible tools/procedures to make a difference
EE Data(continued)
Similar to how we got started with ODR data
• clean up data (e.g. ODR form)
• review data trends and ask questions;
Getting Started with Data-Based Decision-Making
with EE Data
Getting Started (continued)
• decide what it means by those who “live” the data;
• decide what data points to focus on
• design actions that seem likely to effect change;
• monitor/revise action plan
Results of Implementation of Wraparound within SW-PBS in
IL• Three year pilot• Enhance SOC wraparound approach
– data-based decision-making as part of wraparound intervention
• Development of strength-needs data tools
• Web-based system
Wraparound
SIMEO Database (Systematic Information Management of Education Outcomes)
Technical Features: Database Development
online data collection and graphing database system for individual student receiving intensive level planning and supports
IL PBIS Tertiary Demos-07
Tertiary Interventions Linked to Immediate
& Sustainable ODR Decreases
2
125
50
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Time1 (N=26) Time 2 (N=26) Time 3 (N=10)
Cum
ula
tive
Inc
ide
nc
e
Office Discipline Referrals
Immediate & Sustainable Change Noted in Placement
Risk
1.3
1.78
1.5
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
Baseline Time2 Time 3
High Risk
Low/No Risk
(n = 19)
Wraparound-07
0.5
2.37
3.87
2.84
0.79
1.38
0
1
2
3
4
Baseline (n=19) Time 2 (n=19) Time 3 (n=8)
ODRs OSSs
Avg #
of
ep
isodes
Wraparound-07
School Risk Behaviors Substantially Decline
for Student Engaged in Wrap
IL Wraparound Data-07
Positive Classroom Behavior & Academic Achievement Linked
2.8
2.212.45
2.83
2.192.13
1
2
3
4
Baseline (n=26) Time 2 (n=26) Time 3 (n=12)
Classroom Behav ior Functioning Academic Achievement
Always
Never
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
FY 05 (N=18) FY 06 (N=26) FY 07 (N=26)
PBIS Network Staff School Social Worker PBIS Coach Other School Personnel
Shift in Responsibility for Individual Student
Data Management at Tertiary Demo Sites
IL PBIS Tertiary Demos
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 for formalized, lengthy “requests for assistance” by using data to identify youth
Implementation
• Between early September-first of November, completed screenings in 6 districts and 18 schools
• Initial results indicate that approximately 5%-10% of students enrolled in grades 1-6 were identified by the SSBD
• 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
Implementation
• Currently, school-based secondary teams are using SSBD data to implement low-intensity interventions (e.g., check-in/check-out)
Implementation
“Mary Ellen”
Home, School, Community Tool
“Jacob”Reasons for Wrap Referral
Baseline
–Poor school attendance–Tardiness–Refusal to participate in 2nd grade classroom activities. Did work independently in office/partial school days.–Previous hospitalization (Bipolar Disorder)–Retention – currently repeating 2nd grade year–Failing Grades–Family Support Needs
“Jacob”
Home/School/Community Tool
Getting to Strengths & Needs at Baseline
Tertiary Tier: Systems
Systems1. Team based problem solving
• District, Building @ all 3 tiers
2. Data-based decision making system • SWIS data (CICO) • Web-based Individual student data system (IL-
SIMEO)
3. Sustainability focus • redefining roles, district-level data review, etc.
4. Systematic Screening• Beyond ODR’s IL PBIS Network
Tertiary Tier: Data
Data 1. Data used for engagement and action
planning with team2. Data tools are strengths/needs based3. Multiple perspectives and settings
captured in data4. Show small increments of change at
team meetings
IL PBIS Network
Tertiary Tier: Practices
Practices1. Youth having access to all levels of SWPBS 2. Engagement and team development are
critical elements3. Facilitation if team/plan is essential skill
set4. Wrap process creates ownership/context
for interventions5. FBA/BIP is essential skill set6. Assess/monitor progress and fidelity with
families IL PBIS Network
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; use data– Regularly develop & review interventions
• Facilitator Role– Role of bringing team together– Role of blending perspectives
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
Examples of Needs Statements:
1. The student needs to feel adults and peers respect him.
2. The student needs to feel happy about being at school.
3. The parent needs to know her son is getting a fair shake at school.
4. The student needs to be reassured that he can complete the work.
Effective Behavior Interventions:
Function – based Proactive Have adequate dosage of:
InstructionPracticeSupportEncouragementMonitoring
The person who is supposed to implement the strategy needs to be actively involved in designing it; or it probably won’t work!
Ownership & Voice:
A Key to Intervention Design
Interventions….
Points to Keep in MindWhen Action Planning
with a Team…
Scientifically sound strategies can fail if they don’t fit with values and skills of those who are supposed to implement them.
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 4th leading cause of death among
young adults
Resources:
• IL PBIS Network www.pbisillinois.org
• www.pbis.org
Eber, L., Hyde, K., Rose, J., Breen, K., Mc Donald, D. and Lewandowski, H. (in press). Completing the Continuum of School-wide Positive Behavior Support: Wraparound as a Tertiary Level Intervention. In Sailor, W., Dunlap, G., Sugai, and Horner, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Behavior Support.
Freeman, R., Eber, L., Anderson C, Irvin L, Bounds M, Dunlap G, and Horner R. (2006). “Building Inclusive School Cultures Using School-wide PBS: Designing Effective Individual Support Systems for Students with Significant Disabilities”. The Association for Severe Handicaps (TASH) Journal, 3 (10), 4-17.
top related