swpbs implementation blueprint - revised george sugai osep center on pbis center for behavioral...

SWPBS Implementation

Blueprint - revisedGeorge Sugai

OSEP Center on PBISCenter for Behavioral Education & Research

University of ConnecticutMar 25 2010

www.pbis.org www.cber.org www.swis.org

PURPOSE

To describe how district & school

leadership teams can use updated

SWPBS Implementation Blueprint

to develop & guide their

implementation efforts.

• SWPBS Foundations• SWPBS Implementation Guidelines• SWPBS Implementation Blueprint

• Discussion

SWPBS Foundations

“Abbreviated” SWPBS History

1980s RTC

1988 PBS

1991 Proj PREPARE

1997 EBS Demo 1997 IDEA-r

1998 PBIS-I

2000 PBIS TA Guide

2001 OR Beh Res Ctr 2002 PBIS-II

2004 PBS Impl Blue

2007 SISEP

2008 PBIS-IIIJan 2010

SWPBS Eval Blue

Mar 2010 SWPBS Impl

Blue

May 2010 SWPBS Train

Blue

SWPBS FoundationsColvin, G., & Sugai, G. (1992). School-wide discipline: A behavior instruction model. 1992 Oregon conference monograph. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and solutions. In J. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.). The Oregon conference monograph (Vol. 6) (pp. 102-120). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Colvin, G., Kame’enui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with behavior problems in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193-256.

Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (1992). School-wide discipline: A

behavior instruction model. 1992 Oregon conference monograph. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Teach Behavior

School-wide

Precorrections

Positive Reinforcement

ODR Data

Colvin, G., Kame’enui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide & classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration & management of students with behavior problems in general education. Education & Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.

Project PREPARE

“Changing Teacher Behavior is Not Easy”

Instruction Approach to Problem Behavior

Team-based Action Planning

ODR Data

Project PREPARE

~1992

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and solutions. In J. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.). The OR conference monograph (Vol. 6) (pp. 102-120). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Behavioral Challenges v. EBD

Effective Behavioral Support

Educational, Behavioral, & Organizational Capacity

All as Foundation for Some

Specialized Behavioral Expertise

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague,

J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193-256.

Schools important change agent

Universal screening of all

Coordinated 3-tiered prevention

Integrated evidence-based practices

ODR Data

“Early Triangle”

(p. 201)Walker, Knitzer,

Reid, et al., CDC

SWPBS isFramework for enhancing adoption & implementation of

Continuum of evidence-based interventions to achieve

Academically & behaviorally important outcomes for

All students

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%

CONTINUUM OFSCHOOL-WIDE

INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR

SUPPORT

ALL

SOME

FEW

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions• Individual Students• Assessment-based

• High Intensity

Intensive, Individual Interventions• Individual Students• Assessment-based

• Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions• Some students (at-risk)

• High efficiency• Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions• Some students (at-risk)

• High efficiency• Rapid response

Universal Interventions• All students

• Preventive, proactive

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

Responsiveness to Intervention

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Circa 1996

Universal

Targeted

Intensive

All

Some

FewRTI

Continuum of Support for

ALL

Dec 7, 2007

RTIIntegrated Continuum

Mar 10 2010

Academic Continuum

Behavior Continuum

Universal

Targeted

IntensiveContinuum of

Support for ALL

Dec 7, 2007

Science

Soc Studies

Reading

Math

Soc skills

Basketball

Spanish

Label behavior…not people

Universal

Targeted

IntensiveContinuum of

Support for ALL

Dec 7, 2007

Prob Sol.

Coop play

Adult rel.

Anger man.

Attend.

Peer interac

Ind. play

Label behavior…not people

~80% of Students

~5%

ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS

SECONDARY PREVENTION• Check in/out• Targeted social skills

instruction• Peer-based supports• Social skills club•

TERTIARY PREVENTION• Function-based support• Wraparound• Person-centered planning• •

PRIMARY PREVENTION• Teach SW expectations• Proactive SW discipline• Positive reinforcement• Effective instruction• Parent engagement•

SECONDARY PREVENTION• • • • •

TERTIARY PREVENTION• • • • •

PRIMARY PREVENTION• • • • • •

~15%

SWPBS

Implementation

Guidelines

Implementation Challenge

Arranging for accurate, sustained, & generalized local implementation of evidence-based solution

Establishing systems level infrastructure to support scaled implementation of evidence-based solution

Selecting effective, efficient, relevant, durable evidence-based solution

SYST

EMS

PRACTICES

DATASupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement

SupportingDecisionMaking

1. Implementation is Interactive & Informing

2. Implementation involves stakeholders at multiple levels

Student

Classroom

School

State

District

3. Implementation progresses through phases

1. Exploration• Need, priority, agreements, resources, & outcomes

2. Demonstration• Local adoption & implementation with fidelity, outcome

documentation, & visibility

3. Elaboration• Adapted, accurate, & documented replication,

outcomes, & leadership support

4. Continuous Regeneration• Systems adoption, implementation capacity, durability,

planned scale-up, progress monitoring, & efficiency adaptations.

4. Sustainable Implementation requires continuous regeneration

ValuedOutcomes

ContinuousSelf-Assessment

Practice Implementation

EffectivePractices

Relevance

Priority Efficacy

Fidelity

•Desired outcomes documented

EFFECTIVENESS

•Doable by local implementers

EFFICIENCY

•Culturally & contextually appropriate

RELEVANCE

•Lasting implementation & durable outcomes

SUSTAINABILITY

•Transportable & generalizable

SCALABILITY

•Conceptually sound & theoretically logical

DEFENDA BLE

5. Implementation success based on multiple criteria

4 Main Data Concerns

Student outcomes

Practice selection

Practice implementation

Progress monitoring & systems integration

Has convincing functional relationship been documented experimentally between practice & desired outcome?

Has effectiveness of practice been replicated across similar populations &contexts?

Has practice been implemented effectively, accurately, efficiently, &durably by real or local users?

Does practice have sufficient scope to affect multiple educational outcomes?

Are measurable benchmarks specified to assess student outcomes?

Do local implementers consider practice to have high social & educational acceptability & value?

Is practice described w/ sufficient detail for high implementation accuracy & fluency?

Are systems specified for quality professional development & sustained & scalable implementation

6. Implementation based on scalable evidence-based practices Horner, 2010

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (in press). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality.

www.pbis.org

“Is SWPBS evidence-based practice?”

Classroom

SWPBSPractices

Non-classroom Family

Student

School-w

ide

• Smallest #• Evidence-based

• Biggest, durable effect

SCHOOL-WIDE1.Leadership team

2.Behavior purpose statement

3.Set of positive expectations & behaviors

4.Procedures for teaching SW & classroom-wide expected behavior

5.Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected behavior

6.Continuum of procedures for discouraging rule violations

7.Procedures for on-going data-based monitoring & evaluation

EVIDENCE-BASED

INTERVENTIONPRACTICES

CLASSROOM1.All school-wide2.Maximum structure & predictability in routines & environment3.Positively stated expectations posted, taught, reviewed, prompted, & supervised.4.Maximum engagement through high rates of opportunities to respond, delivery of evidence-based instructional curriculum & practices5.Continuum of strategies to acknowledge displays of appropriate behavior.6.Continuum of strategies for responding to inappropriate behavior.

INDIVIDUAL STUDENT1.Behavioral competence at school & district levels

2.Function-based behavior support planning

3.Team- & data-based decision making

4.Comprehensive person-centered planning & wraparound processes

5.Targeted social skills & self-management instruction

6. Individualized instructional & curricular accommodations

NONCLASSROOM1.Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged

2.Active supervision by all staff (Scan, move, interact)

3.Precorrections & reminders

4.Positive reinforcement

FAMILY ENGAGEMENT1.Continuum of positive behavior support for all families

2.Frequent, regular positive contacts, communications, & acknowledgements

3.Formal & active participation & involvement as equal partner

4.Access to system of integrated school & community resources

7. Practices must be implemented with integrity Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009

Is practice being implemented as designed & tested?

Are individual practice components emphasized & implemented as recommended?

Can practice be modified based on local data & context without affecting intended outcomes?

Are implementation integrity procedures & tools available?

Are implementation ceilings &/or floors for maximizing practice outcomes recommended by developers?

Is amount of implementation adaptation or change that can be made w/o affecting outcomes?

Are procedures for implementers to receive implementation feedback on regular basis?

Are adaptations for accommodating context factors (e.g., language, cultural/ethnic customs, community values) available?

8. Policy & practice inform each other Fixsen & Blase, 2007

9. Implementation is systemic

Establish a visible, effective, efficient, & functional leadership team.

Review existing information/data.

Analyze, describe, & prioritize issue w/in context.

Specify measurable outcome that is related directly to issue & context..

Select evidence-based practice to achieve specified outcome.

Provide supports for accurate adoption & sustained implementation.

Monitor practice implementation & progress toward outcome.

Modify practice implementation based on analysis of progress data.

10. Implementation decisions based on student responsiveness to intervention

IMPLEMENTATION W/ FIDELITY

CONTINUUM OF EVIDENCE-BASEDINTERVENTIONS

CONTENT EXPERTISE &

FLUENCY

PREVENTION & EARLY

INTERVENTION

CONTINUOUSPROGRESS

MONITORING

UNIVERSAL SCREENING

DATA-BASEDDECISION MAKING & PROBLEM SOLVING

RtI

11. Implementation is team-based, strategic action planning process

Agreements

Team

Data-based Action Plan

ImplementationEvaluation

SWPBS

Implementation

Blueprint - rev

Funding Visibility PolicyPoliticalSupport

Training CoachingBehavioral Expertise

Evaluation

LEADERSHIP TEAM(Coordination)

Local School/District Implementation Demonstrations

SWPBS Implementation Blueprint www.pbis.org

User’s Quick Access Guide

www.scalingup.org

Dean FixsenKaren Blase

UNC

Blueprint Self-Assessment

Blueprint Blueprint Planning Tool

Leadership Team

1. Multi-school & district capacity

2. Membership representation

3. Blueprint self-assessment

4. Three-five year action plan

5. Regular meeting schedule

6. Coordinator

7. Implementation team

8. Evaluator

9. Decision making authority

22.Evidence-based practices & professional development

23.Plan for local training capacity

24.Plan for continuous regeneration

25.Local & regional coaching network

26.Monthly (new) & quarterly (established) coaching

27. Internal & external coaching functions

28. Implementation evaluation process & schedule

29.School based data system

30.District/state systems evaluation

31.Dissemination of annual report

32.Quarterly celebration & acknowledge-ment of accomplish-ments & outcomes

33.At least 2 individuals w/ SWPBS systems expertise

34. Individuals w/ behavioral expertise

35.Academic-behavioral expertise

36.Process & organizational expertise

Training Coaching Evaluation Expertise

CT TrainingCapacityFeb 2010

See PBIS Training Blueprint

FundingPolitical Support

Visibility Policy

10.Three years stable district/state funding

11. Assessment & Integration of organizational resources

12.Dissemination strategies to inform stakeholders

13.Quarterly & public acknowledgements

14.Social behavior in top 3 priorities

15.Annual leadership report to political unit

16.State chief participation & support

17.Endorsed SWPBS policy statement

18.Written procedural guidelines & agreements

19.Semi-annual outcome review to inform policy

20.Cross-initiative audit of implementation integrity

21.Action plan for integrated implementation

Local School/District Implementation Demonstration

37.At least 10 local school demonstrations of SWPBS process & outcomes

38.At least 2 districts/regional demonstrations of system-level leadership teams (25% of schools)

George.sugai@uconn.eduRobh@uoregon.edupbis.org swis.org cber.org