district and school systems planning for tier 2 and tier 3
DESCRIPTION
District and School Systems Planning for Tier 2 and Tier 3. National PBIS Leadership Forum October 14,2010 2:15-3:30 Session C6 Lucille Eber, IL PBIS Network www.pbisillinois.org. The Kansas-Illinois SW-PBS Tertiary Demonstration Center: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
District and School Systems Planning for Tier 2 and Tier 3
National PBIS Leadership ForumOctober 14,2010
2:15-3:30Session C6
Lucille Eber, IL PBIS Networkwww.pbisillinois.org
The Kansas-Illinois
SW-PBS Tertiary Demonstration Center:
A Response to Intervention (RtI)
Continuum of Support Model
Lucille Eber, Illinois PBIS Network
Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas
IL Tier 2/3 Team
• Kimberli Breen• Michele Capio-Collins• Ami Flammini• Sheri Luecking• Diane McDonald• Kelly Hyde• Jen Rose
Commitments for Success*Examples of District/Building Tier 2/3 Commitments :
– 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– Review Special Education and
Disproportionality Data– Review District Policies
*See IL PBIS Network Commitment for Success Agreement
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
1. District Planning Team to address the system challenges and address the data trends to be changed.
2. Building level tertiary systems planning team to monitor progress of tertiary plans and address challenges at building level.
3. Tertiary Coaching (District level).
4. Facilitators identified and “positioned” to facilitate Tier 3 teams and plans for 1-5% of students.
5. Comprehensive training and technical assistance plan.
6. Data system/tools to be integrated into tertiary practices.
Tertiary Level System Components(Installation Stage)
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
Individualized Check-In/Check-Out, Groups & Mentoring (ex. CnC)
Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)
Complex 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
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 2009Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Tier 2/Secondary
Tier 3/Tertiary
Inte
rven
tio
nAssessm
en
t
3-Tiered System of Support
Necessary Conversations (Teams)
CICO
SAIG
Group w. individual
feature
Complex
FBA/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
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 plans for one student at a time
– Every school has this type of meeting
– Teachers and family are typically invited
Secondary Systems Planning Team
Meeting Agenda
• Number of youth in CICO (record on TT)? – Number of youth responding (record on TT)?
* Send Reverse Request for Assistance to teachers of all youth not responding
– Number of new youth potentially entering intervention (share # of RFAs, Universal Screening info and/or youth who met the data-based decision-rule cut offs for Secondary support)?
• Repeat for S/AIG, Mentoring & Brief FBA/BIP• If less than 70% of youth are responding to any of the
interventions, the Secondary Systems team should review the integrity of the intervention and make adjustments as needed.
Secondary Systems Team Roles
• Team Leader: responsible for agenda & overall facilitation
• Intervention Coordinators (CICO, S/AIG etc.): report out on aggregate student data from interventions they facilitate (ex. “50 youth in CICO, 40 are responding”)
• Action Plan Recorder: a.k.a. note taker• Time Keeper: help team to set time limits and
stay within allotted time for each agenda item
Data-Based Decision-Making
Student outcome data is used :
a) To identify youth in need of support and to identify appropriate intervention
b) For on-going progress-monitoring of response to intervention
c) To transition youth out of interventions at the appropriate time
Data Used to Identify Youth in Need of CICO
• Student outcome data:– Office Discipline Referrals– Suspensions– Attendance– Tardies
• Universal Screeners (SSBD, BESS etc.)• Requests for Assistance made by teachers,
family members and/or students
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 of st
ud
ents
2-5 ODRs 6+ ODRs CICO*
*CICO = Check in, Check Out
IL Tertiary Demo
Data Used to Progress-Monitor CICO
• DPR (Daily Progress Report) points earned each day (data entered into Excel or SWIS)
• Office Discipline Referrals• Suspensions• Attendance• Tardies• Follow-up questionnaire for teachers, family
member, or student who made referral
Daily Data Used for Decision Making
Daily Data Used for Decision Making
Development of Data based decision rules
Everyone needs to know how students are eligible for the intervention.
Everyone needs to know how progress is monitored.
Everyone needs to know how students exit the intervention.
Data Used to Identify Youth Ready for Exiting/Transitioning out of Support
• DPR (Daily Progress Report) points earned each day (data entered into Excel or SWIS)
• Office Discipline Referrals• Suspensions• Attendance• Tardies• Follow-up questionnaire for teachers, family
member, or student who made referral
Recommended Time-frames for Data Review
CICO, S/AIG, mentoring & Brief FBA/BIP:
• Student outcome data (student effectiveness):– Intervention facilitator to review individual
student data at least every 2 weeks
• Process data (Intervention effectiveness):– Student aggregate data should be reviewed at
least once a month by Secondary Systems Team
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
Tertiary System Planning Team
• Supported by Tertiary Coach• Review/assess effectiveness of interventions
themselves• Work on improving/creating intervention
systems, data, practices• Support Complex FBA/BIP & Wraparound
facilitators
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.
Team Development
Initiating Tier 3 FBA/BIP Process• Prepare for team meetings through individual
conversations with core team members (critical first step)
• The first contact/s with the family should feel different than being invited to a standing/generic meeting (ex. IEP mtg.)
• Gather information on youth strengths & preferences (this will be valuable information for action planning)
Team Development (cont.)
Tier 3 FBA/BIP Facilitator:– Meets with family & stakeholders– Gathers perspectives on strengths & needs– Assesses safety
• Initiates creation of crisis/safety plan if safety is compromised
– Explains the Tier 3 FBA/BIP process– Assists in identifying team members, invites
members & facilitates mtg.– Summarizes interview information & data review
(FBA) into Competing Behavior Pathway and shares with team
Identifying Who Needs a FBA/BIP
• Kids are referred to an individual problem solving team by the Secondary Systems Team typically when lower-level, Simple Secondary, interventions do not result in adequate progress.
– Any student not responding adequately to CICO, S/AIG and/or Mentoring etc. (CnC etc.).
– Request for Assistance made:
• Data identifies student as in need (# of ODRs, suspensions, absences, etc..).
• Exception to the system: Adult perceives youth as in urgent need (lower-level support not seen as adequate)
Brief vs. Complex FBA/BIP Brief• Generic Individual Problem
solving Team
• Meeting time/day usually already determined
• Plan developed quickly/easily
Complex• Individualized Youth FBA/BIP
Team
• Meeting time/day decided by individualized team
• Interventions are highly individualized
Brief vs. Complex FBA/BIP
Brief• SWIS data, Daily Progress
Report (DPR) points, Functional Assessment interviews
• Effectiveness of system monitored by Secondary Systems Planning Team
• Data reviewed at least every other week
Complex• SWIS data, Daily Progress
Report (DPR) points, Functional Assessment interviews, SIMEO Data, direct observation data, additional tools as needed
• Effectiveness of system monitored by Tertiary Systems Planning Team
• Data reviewed at least weekly
Additional Data Tools Used for Complex FBA/BIP
• SIMEO
– Educational Information Tool
– Student Disposition Tool
• Problem-Behavior Questionnaire
• Forced-Choice Reinforcement Menu
• Complex FBA Family-Directed Interview
• Direct observation
• Setting-specific data (scatter plot, ABC chart)
Tier 3Behavior Intervention Planning
• All areas must be addressed:
– Setting Events
– Triggering Antecedents
– Behavior or skills
– Consequences
• All individuals must be involved:
– Family
– Non-teaching staff/bus drivers etc.
– Teachers/administrators
Moving from Brief FBA/BIP to Complex FBA/BIP
• Team developing plan became more individualized
• Additional data tool used—Educational Information Tool (SIMEO)
• BIP strategies applied in multiple settings (at school)
Bobby: 4th Grade Student in PBIS Tier III The Wraparound Decision Points…
• Strengths: – Smart, good at math, reading, writing and playing video
games– Mother’s School Involvement, Established Relationship with
Mentor
• Risk Factors and Challenges: – Three Previous Psychiatric Hospitalizations– Physical Aggressions at home – Office Discipline Referrals (30)– Suspensions-(3)– ADHD Diagnosis with inconsistent use of medication
• Unsuccessful stabilization with CICO and Mentor• Student Requested a Psychiatric Hospitalization
Bobby: 4th Grade Student in Tier III School
The First Team Meeting…
• Family and Student Voice on Team Composition• Initial steps as a result of the first Wrap team meeting:
-Continued cico
-Continued mentoring
-Continued MH services
-Continue communication with Mental Health
FBA to be completed by Facilitator
Family YMCA (schedule present at LANS for funding)
Bobby: 4th Grade Student in Tier III School
The Third Team Meeting…
• Reviewed strengths ~ Celebrating that he walked away from two fights at school (he had never done that before)
• Team looked at SIMEO Graphs and Bobby led the discussion and interpreted the improvements for the group
• Needs in Bobby’s words were that he “still had room to improve”. Bobby pointed to areas on the SIMEO graphs on which he still needed to work
Educational-Information Tool
Example of Stages of implication
• Applied to Tier 3 Development…
Stages of Implementation
• Exploration
• Installation
• Initial Implementation
• Full Implementation
• Innovation
• Sustainability
Implementation occurs in stages:
Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005
2 – 4 Years
Initial Implementation Stage:
• District Leadership Team meets at least quarterly
• District Tertiary Coach .5 fte (partially funded)• 3 or more buildings with at least monthly
Secondary Systems & Tertiary Systems Team mtgs.
• 3 or more buildings with 1-3 kids with 2 or more data points
Full Implementation Stage:
• District Leadership Team mtg. with a Tertiary focus at least quarterly
• District Tertiary Coach 1 fte (partially funded)• 6 or more buildings with at least monthly
Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs.
• 6 or more buildings with 3 or more kids with 2 or more data points
Innovation Stage:
• District Leadership Team mtg. w. a Tertiary focus at least quarterly w. community & family representation
• District Tertiary Coach 1 fte (fully funded)• 9 or more buildings with at least monthly
Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs.
• 9 or more buildings with 1-3 % of kids with 2 or more data points
• Modified district policies/procedures• Specific strategies for blending related initiatives
Sustainability Stage:
• Representative District Leadership Team mtg. with integrated Tertiary focus regularly
• District Tertiary Coach/es 1 fte or more (fully funded)
• 80% of buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs.
• 80% of buildings with 1-3 % of kids with 2 or more data points
• Modified district policies/procedures• Specific strategies for blending related
initiatives
Federal demonstration sites show improvement at all tiers, with marked growth in
secondary and tertiary systems
34%
216%
ISSET results show consistent, three-year improvement in systems implementation
229%35%
55%78%
Federal Demonstration Sites FY08-FY10 % ISSET Implementation
Illinois PBIS Network Universal Screening Results: Externalizers
SY 2007-10
(N=18) (N=30) (N=42)
Illinois PBIS Network Universal Screening Results: Internalizers
SY 2007-10
(N=18) (N=30) (N=42)
State Performance Plan (SPP)Indicators for Special Education
State Performance Plan (SPP)Indicators for Special Education
State Performance Plan (SPP)Indicators for Special Education
State Performance Plan (SPP)Indicators for Special Education
FY 2010 SIMEO Tertiary Study FY 2007-FY 2010
Sample: Students with Three Complete Sets of SIMEO Data
• 158 students receiving Tier 3 Interventions-Complex FBA or Wraparound within school setting
• Average length of time receiving Wrap = 9.3 months
• Baseline assessed within 30 days of team engagement on student disposition tool, education information tool and home school community tool
• Time 2 assessment conducted on average 3.42 months after Baseline; Time 3 Assessment conducted on average 3.84 months after Time 2
• Tools: Student Disposition, Ed-Tool, Home School Community Tool and if applicable, Discharge Tool
FY 2010 Tier III SIMEO Study Student Characteristics
→ Primary Source of Referral→ School Social Worker- 55% (87)→ Special Ed Director-26% (17)→ PBIS Coach -19 (12%)
→ Facilitator→ School Social Workers 88% (139)
→ Range of Ed Placements
-General Ed Placement 100% of day- 58% (91)-61%+ Day outside Gen Ed - 20% (30)
→ IEP Identified at Baseline: 42% (67)→ Range of Primary Disabilities:
→ ED 18% (29)→ SLD 11% (18)→ Other Health 5% (8)
Risk of One ore More Placement Failure: 86% (136 students)
N=158
High Risk
No Risk
Minimal Risk
Moderate Risk
FY 2010-Tier 3 SIMEO Study Risk of Home, School and Community Placement
FY 2010-Tier 3 SIMEO Study High Risk School Behaviors
N=158
38% decrease
27% decrease
FY 2010-Tier 3 SIMEO Study Classroom Behavior Functioning and Academic Performance
N=158
Always
Never
Sometimes
Frequently
90-100%
70-79%
60-69%
0-59%
Classroom Behavior Academic Performance
Resources available at:www.pbisillinois.org