secondary/tertiary systems development at district & school levels lucille eber illinois pbis...

Secondary/Tertiary Systems Development at

District & School Levels

Lucille EberIllinois PBIS

Network

National PBIS Leadership ForumHyatt Regency O’Hare, Rosemont, IL

October 8, 2009

Session A-5

Cindy Anderson University of

Oregon

“Context” for 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)– 1,100 schools supported by Network

• K-I Center: Tertiary Demo project– Six districts in 4th Year of Tertiary demo-54 schools– Two Districts in 2nd Year – 12 schools (Rep sites)– Five more districts in 1st year- 15 schools (Rep sites)

Acknowledging IL PBIS Network

Tier 2/3 Leaders

• Kimberli Breen• Sheri Luecking• Amy Lee• Ami Flammini• Michele Capio-Collins• Dan Koonce

Our Journey….

• From demos…• to replication….• to ‘business as usual’….

– Changes in Secondary and Tertiary courses• Tools integrated• Teaming structures better defined• Scheduled phone follow-up for team facilitators is

automatic

‘Baseline’ Issues Identified

Systems, data, Practices• District level challenges• Building-level roadblocks

Challenges for Districts

• Making Universal supports available for ALL• Referrals to Special Education seen as the

“intervention”• FBA viewed as required “paperwork” vs. a needed

part of designing an intervention• Relying on interventions the system is familiar with

vs. ones likely to produce an effect • Moving from one-student at a time (reactive

approaches) to capacity (systems) within schools to support ALL who need Secondary/Tertiary.

Observations of Systems/Practices As Demos Began

• Schools did not have continuum of interventions– Just 1 or 2 types of Secondary, & SpEd was seen as the

Tertiary “intervention”• Schools had some opportunity for referral for

assistance– But were NOT using data for automatic entrance into

interventions• No/minimal Universal screening• Lack of data-based decision rules (ex. 2 ODRs = entrance

to CICO)

Observations of Systems/Practices

As Demos Began

• Data weakest link– Data-based decision rules for entrance into secondary &

tertiary interventions unclear– Tracking intervention effectiveness was not on the radar

• Principals and clinicians were treating discipline problems/approaches, SpEd testing/placement, and “PBIS” as separate entities or silos within schools and districts.

Progress after 3 Years

• Tier 2/3 System Tools developed for both district and school use

• Increase in students accessing Tier 2/3 interventions

• Improvement in fidelity of interventions• Improved student outcomes• Changes in District systems/data/practices• Change in Network approach to building Tier

2/3 capacity

N=70

52

281

56 46

185

3524 41

157

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Office DisciplineReferrals

In-School Suspensions Out of SchoolSuspensions

Num

ber o

f Epi

sode

s

Baseline Time 2 Time 3N=70

FY 2009-Study IIi High Risk School Behaviors

Baseline plus Time 2 and Time 3 Study Cohort

1.71.88

2.64

2.37

1.782

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Baseline Time2

Home School Community

N=125

High Risk

No Risk

Minimal Risk

Moderate Risk

FY 2009-Study II Students by Overall Risk of Placement

1.921.76

2.64

2.442.19

1.942.14

1.83

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Baseline Time 2 Time 3

Home School Community N=70

High Risk

No Risk

Minimal Risk

Moderate Risk

FY 2009-Study III Students by Overall Risk of Placement

Baseline plus Time 2 and Time 3

More Students Access Tier 2/3 Interventions When Tier 1/ Universal is in Place

7.94%

4.95%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%

Partially Implementing(n=26)

Fully Implementing(n=125)

% stu

dent

s

FY09 School Profile ToolStudents Accessing Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions

Select comparison between matched samples of demo and non-demo schools filling out the

School Profile Tool and reporting levels of interventions by school.

Replication of Tertiary Demos Moving Rapidly

Phases of Implementation: Secondary Phase I (n=8 Replication Schools)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Team meetsregularly

Sec/Ter.tracking tool

used

Students arereferred for

tier 2interventions

DPR used 70% successrate for simple

tier 2interventions

Scho

ols w

ith It

em in

Pla

ce

Fa ll 2008 Spring 2009

Students with IEPs Spending more than 80% of School Day in General Education Setting

50.32

49.348.5

4949.5

5050.5

State TargetRatio

District Ratio

Ratio

Students with IEPs Served in Separate Placements

102122

7.484.91 4.58

9.01

02468

10

FY07 FY08

Ratio

90100110120130

# of

Stud

ents

Students w/ IEPs in separate placementsDistrict Ratio State Target

Improved Access to General Education for Students with IEPs

49.34948.5

72.6560.19 62.73

020406080

FY06 FY07 FY08

Ratio

State Target BardwellStudents with IEPs Spending more than 80% of Day in General Education Setting

System Tools Track Decreases in Special Education PlacementLovejoy Elementary School Special Education

Referral/Placement by School Year

13

64 5

15

2

119

0

5

10

15

20

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

# of

Stud

ents

Referred for Special Ed Testing Placed in Special Ed

The Developing Tier 2/3 Model….

System Structures Needed: Installation Stage

District-level…School-level…

Commitments for Success

– Tier 2/3 Coaching FTE

– Position Personnel to Facilitate Tertiary Intervention Teams for 3-5% of Students

– Comprehensive Training and “Practice”

– Data-based decision-making is part of all practices

– Tertiary District Leadership Team

– Tertiary Systems Planning team in each school

– Review Special Education and Disproportionality Data

– Review District Policies

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

Primary Prevention:School-/Classroom-Wide Systems for

All Students,Staff, & Settings

Secondary Prevention:Specialized Group

Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior

Tertiary Prevention:Specialized

IndividualizedSystems for Students

with High-Risk Behavior

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR

SUPPORT

Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment

School-Wide Prevention Systems

SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T

Check-in/ Check-out (CICO)

Group Intervention with Individualized Feature (e.g., Check and Connect -CnC and Mentoring)

Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)

Complex or Multiple-domain FBA/BIP

Wraparound

ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc.

Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals)

Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc.

Social/Academic Instructional Groups (SAIG)

Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model

Illinois PBIS Network, Revised October 2009Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

Tier 2/Secondary

Tier 3/Tertiary

Inte

rven

tionAssessm

en

t

Teaming at Tier 2

Secondary Systems Planning ‘conversation’– Monitors effectiveness of CICO, S/AIG, Mentoring, and

Brief FBA/BIP supports– Review data in aggregate to make decisions on

improvements to the interventions themselves– Students are NOT discussed

Problem Solving Team (‘conversation’)– Develops & monitors plans for one student at a time– Every school has this type of meeting– Teachers and family are typically invited

Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool

• Structured to follow 6 levels/types of interventions from Secondary through Tertiary

• Increases accountability – Schools have to count # of kids in interventions – Data-based decision-rules are necessary (Identify,

Progress-monitor, Exit)– Must define ‘response’ to each intervention type/level– Shows % of kids who responded to each intervention

• …..the tool assesses the success rate, or effectiveness of the interventions themselves

• Connects each level of intervention to the next level

Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups

• Three types of skills-building groups:1) Pro-social skills2) Problem-solving skills3) Academic Behavior skills** (Academic Content skills)

• Best if involves use of Daily Progress Report

• These are often the skill groups facilitated by social workers and counselors

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 natural settings, not in counseling sessions (transference of skills to classroom, café etc.)

• Stakeholders (teachers, family etc.) should have input into success of intervention (ex. Daily Progress Report)

Use of Daily Progress Report

• Transference and generalization of skills

• Prompting of replacement behaviors

• Reinforcement of replacement behaviors

• Stakeholder feedback and buy-in

Teaming at Tier 3• Tertiary Systems Planning ‘conversation’

– Monitors effectiveness of Complex FBA/BIP & Wraparound supports

– Review data in aggregate to make decisions on improvements to the interventions themselves

– Students are NOT discussed • Individual Student Teams

– FBA/BIP Team per student– Wraparound Team per student

Student-Specific Teams

• Wraparound Team:– Family of child and all relevant stakeholders invited by

family. Wrap facilitators are trained to effectively engage families so that they will see that these teams are created by and for the family, and therefore will want to have a team and actively participate. School staff involved are informed that their presence is uniquely important for this youth and invited to participate.

• Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team: – Like the wraparound team, this team is uniquely created

for each individual child in need of comprehensive planning and the families are critical members of the team. All relevant individuals/staff are invited.

3-Tiered System of Support

Necessary Conversations (Teams)

CICO

SAIG

Group w. individual

feature

ComplexFBA/BIP

Problem Solving Team

Tertiary Systems Team

Brief

FBA/BIP

Brief FBA/BIP

WRAP

Secondary Systems Team

Plans SW & Class-wide supports

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

Sept. 1, 2009

UniversalTeam

Universal Support

Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions Tracking Tool:NON-Examples of

Data-based Decision-rules for Defining Response

1. Responding to CICO: kid carries that DPR card

2. Responding to Social/Academic instructional groups: kid shows up for group - even if he’s not supposed to be there

3. Responding to Individualized CICO, Groups & Mentoring (i.e. CNC): roughly, maybe about 30-50% of the numbers are circled on the paper sheet (double digits are always good)

4. Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions: kid says “now he gets why he does what he does and promises never to do that behavior again”

5. Responding to Complex Function-Based Interventions: kid says “now he really gets why he does what he does and promises never to do that behavior again”

6. Responding to Wraparound Plans: kid comes to school every day with a smile, and the kid’s teacher has taken to wearing her original “Woodstock Nation” t-shirt on school spirit days – she’s a happy camper.

Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions Tracking Tool:Examples of

Data-based Decision-rules for Defining Response

1. Responding to CICO: Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks.

2. Responding to Social/Academic Instructional groups: Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks (demonstrating target skill(s) in classroom setting) and has had no new ODRs.

3. Responding to Individualized CICO, Groups & Mentoring (i.e. CNC): Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks, has had no ODRs or ISSs and has improved attendance.

4. Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions: Over a 4 week period, youth has demonstrated trends of decreased tardies and increased work completion (as demonstrated on individualized DPR).

5. Responding to Complex Function-based Interventions: Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks (demonstrating target skill(s) in classroom setting), 50% reduction in ODRs and improvement in SIMEO.

6. Responding to Wraparound Plans: Improvement in reading skills as measured by DIBELS; and improvement with peer interactions (participating in extracurricular activities and socializing with peers on a regular basis) as measured by SIMEO.

Shift in Responsibility for Individual Student Data

Management

0

50

100

150

FY 05(N=18)

FY 06(N=26)

FY 07(N=26)

FY 08(N=69)

FY 09(N=125)

PBIS Network Staff School Social Worker

District Tertiary Coach Other School Personnel

Deciding Which Tertiary Level Intervention

is Most AppropriateComplex FBA/BIP (T200):• Brief FBA/BIP was not

successful

AND

• NONE of Wraparound criteria are present

Wraparound (T300+):• Youth with multiple needs

across home, school, community & life domains

• Youth at-risk for change of placement

• The adults in youth’s life are not effectively engaged in comprehensive planning (i.e. adults not getting along well)

Tertiary Students Receiving

Wrap v. Complex FBA FY08-09

6364

85

13

0

2550

75100

125

FY 2008 FY 2009

Stu

dent

s

Students Receiving Wraparound Tracked inSIMEO

Students Receiving Complex FBA Tracked in SIMEO

Systems-Response Tool“Finding” Students in Need of Tertiary

Supports

• Records the “system’s response” to youth behavior/circumstance

• Administrators and team members need to find the #s of youth that meet each criteria– Using the tool IS engaging in a ‘systems-reflection’– Prevents the hiding or mis-labeling of youth (ex. “We don’t

have any kids that need Wraparound”)

Systems-Response ToolSystem Response Options Total # of Students in Category for Time Period: List date at top of column

& total # of youth in each box

Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date:

A. Students being monitored by Secondary Systems Team (ex. CICO, CnC, 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

Raw Data: Selected Items from Lukancic 08-09 Systems Response

ToolSystems Response Tool Lukancic 08-09

SY 07-08

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009 May 2009

Students being monitored by Secondary Systems Team (CICO, CnC, FBA/BIP) 27 7 15 14 19 24 42 25 45 26

Students being monitored by Tertiary Systems Team (Complex FBA/BIP, Wraparound) 14 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 19 19

Students being considered for Special Education Testing 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 2

Students suspended on two or more separate occasions 29 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1

Examples of Practice Features that Need System

Support• District and School level• Staff development priorities (ongoing)• Changes in ‘policies’

– FBA/BIP, staff assignment, administrative roles– Use of data to guide practices (required)– Specialized services staff roles– Decision rules for making placements

Wraparound Skill Sets

1. Identifying “big” needs (quality of life indicators)• “Student needs to feel others respect him”

2. Establish voice/ownership 3. Reframe blame4. Recognize/prevent teams’ becoming immobilized by

“setting events”5. Getting to interventions that actually work6. Integrate data-based decision-making into complex

process (home-school-community)

Function• The purpose/reason for

demonstrating a specific type of behavior within a specific context/routine.

• Specific behaviors have been strengthened by consistent reinforcement.

• Family voice may not be necessary to identify function of behavior in the school setting.

• Once Function is correctly identified, putting a plan in place can produce rapid behavior change. This can be accomplished in a single meeting.

Big Need• The underlying reason preventing

successful experiences/interactions in multiple settings/contexts/routines

• When a big quality of life need is unmet, it impacts perception/ judgment, often resulting in chronic problem behavior.

• Family voice is necessary to identify the Big Need for the school setting.

• Once Big Need is identified, it takes a while to achieve and involves action planning across multiple life domains. Meeting the big need always involves multiple Child & Family Team meetings.

Function• Function is identified through

structured interviews focusing on the problem behavior, antecedents, consequences, and setting events

• Focus is on developing function-based support plan (replacement behavior, antecedent, consequence, and setting event supports).

• When achieved, situations improve for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher).

Big Need• Big needs are identified through

open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools with those engaged with the youth on a regular basis.

• Big Need statements motivate a family to participate on the team (know we are working on something ‘bigger’ than specific behaviors).

• If met, the need will improve quality of life for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher).

Big Need: “Andy needs to feel like he belongs at

school”• School Behaviors: Aggressive with peers, excessive

absences/tardies, history of academic failure• Other indicators: Family frequently relocated, lack of home

school communication, community support needs

Starting with FBA would not have been an effective approach—why?– 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”)– Open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools helped engage family– Bigger needs to work on to improve quality of life for youth and family

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 decision- making)- “Unwrap”

Points to Remember:Engaging Families

Apply RtI to Family Engagement: don’t keep doing what hasn’t worked up

If engagement didn’t happen, how would you change your approach to effectively engage?

Professionals don’t get to choose or judge how families raise their kids.

Always start with a conversation (not a meeting) with the family, getting their trust and permission before talking with others.

Points to Remember:Engaging Professionals

Apply RtI to Teacher Engagement: don’t keep doing what hasn’t worked.

Just like we do for kids and families, recognize teacher strengths and needs. Teacher voice in the plan will ensure better outcomes.

Always start with a conversation (don’t hand them ‘forms to fill out”). Teachers need to be prepared for the wrap meeting and kept “in the loop”.

Use data to bring teacher and family together.

Using Data to Drive Decision-Making with

Wraparound

• More efficient teams, meetings and plans• Less reactive (emotion-based) actions• More strategic actions• More effective outcomes• Longer-term commitment to maintain success

Baseline Data -• Enhances the initial conversations with family

and team members.• Creates more efficient team meetings. • Takes the emotion out of team meetings. • Gives us a starting point for planning.• Helps us plan across all environments – Home,

School and Community

Wraparound: Data-based decision-

making

Wraparound Case Study “Ozzie” cont.Getting to Strengths and Needs at Baseline

Using Data and Voice & Choice

Follow-up Data (Time2, Time 3…)

• Helps the team celebrate progress and build on what is working;

• Shows small increments of progress that can be missed.

• Helps us progress monitor – if the plan is not working, re-work the plan!

• Helps us get buy-in from staff, administration, and skeptical team members.

Wraparound: Data-based decision-

making

Transition Planning for “Jacob”Using Data to get buy-in from the

new team