from idea to implementation: getting effective practices into the classroom the illinois pbis...
TRANSCRIPT
From IDEA to Implementation: Getting Effective Practices
into the Classroom
The Illinois PBIS Network
Lucille Eber [email protected]
State Director, IL PBIS Network
2008 OSEP Project Director’s Conference
State, Regional and Local Structures
Consistent statewide training and TA
Ensure readiness & commitment before training
Data disseminated and used
newsletters
website
presentations
trainings
reports Continuous Regeneration
Sustainability of PBIS in IL:
Implementation Model
Local Structures School-based teams District planning teams Coaches (internal & external)
Regional Structures Coordinators and Coaches Delivery of Training and Technical Assistance
Statewide Structure Development of Training & Technical Assistance Evaluation & Dissemination National Center Support
State-level Structure
Implementation Staff (25 FTE)• Technical Assistance Directors• Technical Assistance Coordinators
Administrative Support (9 FTE)• Training/Communications• Evaluation and Data Management• IT support
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingDecisionMaking
SupportingStudent Behavior
OUTCOMES
Social Competence &Academic Achievement
Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions 1-5%•Individual students•Assessment-based•High intensity
1-5% Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions•Individual students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures
Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5-15%•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response•Small group interventions• Some individualizing
5-15% Tier 2/Secondary Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response•Small group interventions•Some individualizing
Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90%•All students•Preventive, proactive
80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive
School-Wide Systems for Student Success:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/schoolwide.htm
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
Tier 2/Secondary
Tier 3/Tertiary
In
terv
entio
nAssessm
en
tIllinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Small Group Interventions (CICO, SSI, etc)
Group Interventions withIndividualized Focus (CnC, etc)
Simple Individual Interventions(Simple FBA/BIP, Schedule/ Curriculum Changes, etc)
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.
IL PBIS Schools and Districts
PBIS Schools Trained & Implementing
394444
520587
654
800
96 115 134 151 170 200
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Year 5 6/03
Year 6 6/04
Year 7 6/05
Year 8 6/06
Year 9 6/07
Year 106/08
num
be
r of sc
ho
ols
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).
Comparison of Partial & Fully Implementing
Schools
on Suspensions/Expulsions FY07 per 100 Students
11.2
5.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Partial (n=58) Full (n=140)
Implementation
Num
be
r o
f su
spe
nsio
ns
pe
r 10
0
stud
ents
Illinois PBIS Schools
Comparing School Safety Survey
Partial vs. Full Implementation
46 41
7378
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 2006-07
142
42
0
50
100
150
Fully Implementing
Schools (n= 70 schools)
Partially Implementing
Schools (n= 24 schools)
Level of implementation
Nu
mb
er o
f in
terv
en
tion
Illinois PBIS Schools
Summary of FY 2008 Office Referrals:Mean Number of Office Discipline Referrals
per SIMEO Student
6.3
3.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Baseline Time 2
Office Disciplinary Referrals
N=44N=44
Summary of FY 2008 Office Referrals:Mean Number of Office Discipline Referrals
per SIMEO Student for Students with Same Data Points
2.27
6.3
3.35
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Baseline Time 2 Time 3
Office Disciplinary Referrals
N=19N=19 N=19
Building Local Capacity: Coaches
Coaches are school personnel who have:
Fluency with systems & practicesCapacity to delivery high level technical
assistanceCapacity to sustain teams in efforts to
implement systems & practices
Redefine Roles of District-level Staff to Coach
Sustainability & Accountability
Hands-on technical assistanceGuide problem solvingLocal trainingTeam start-up & sustainabilityPublic relations/communicationsSupport local leadershipLocal coordination of resourcesProvide prompts & reinforcers
PBIS External Coach Expansion from FY05 to FY08
118
71 76
100
124
150
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
num
ber o
f ext
ern
al c
oache
s
Coach Role/Goals
• Provide information and technical assistance:– best practices– current research– funding sources
• Know and anticipate local needs and resources
• Keep teams focused/functioning
• Volume• Quality• Consistency• Dosage/practice• Layering Content from Tier to Tier• Systems, Data, Practices at all 3 Tiers
Ongoing Staff DevelopmentComponents to Consider:
A Multi-level Training Plan
Awareness/ReadinessUniversal/Tier 1Secondary/Tier 2Tertiary/Tier 3Coaches SeriesAudience Specific (H.S, Alt. schools, etc)
District Leadership Team TrainingsAdministrator Academies
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
Secondary Training Events
A Two Year Comparison
0
200
400
600
800
2005-06 2006-0701020
304050
Secondary Participants
Secondary Trainings
Tertiary Training Events
A Two Year Comparison
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2005-06 2006-070
5
10
15
20
25
30
Tertiary Participants
Tertiary Trainings
Content for integrated coaches training
across related initiatives (state-level)Systems, Data and Practices
LeadershipData based Decision MakingUniversal ScreeningProgress MonitoringStandards Aligned CurriculumEvidenced Based Practice3-Tiered Model of InterventionsDifferentiation for Academics and BehaviorTeam Based ImplementationSustainability
EX200 Objectives• Develop fluency with fidelity tools to
guild district planning• Develop fluency with data-based
decision-making for meeting the educational needs of all students
• Practice strategies to coach district PBIS Leadership Teams
Example from Advanced Coaches Training Course
Objective 2Develop fluency with data-based decision
making to meet the educational needs of all students
• District Data AuditThis data is currently available in
schools; locating, aggregating, and analyzing it for trends is the challenge that proves most rewarding when completed.
Illinois PBIS Individual School Data Audit
Purpose: To guide schools and districts in the collection, analysis, comparison and decision making for school improvement
Compares and Correlates Multiple Data Sets• Demographics • Special Ed Data• Academic Achievement • Discipline Data
Start with one year and add additional years to see trends
Serves as a compilation sheet for information that is available to districts
Demographic and Academic Data
• Enrollment Data: Fall Housing Report, SWIS, IIRC
• Retention, Drop out, Graduation, Suspension/Expulsion, ODR’s – building and district records
• Academic Data: ISAT Reports, Interactive School Report Card (iirc.niu.edu)
Special Education Data:
• What is percentage of total enrollment by ethnicity?• What percentage of each ethnic group has an IEP?• What is their EE continuum? (% of time outside of
General Education)• Does the data indicate an increase or decrease in
students referred/placed in Special Education?• Does the data indicate an increase or decrease in
least restrictive environment?
Beyond ethnicity – replace ethnicity with gender, English Language Learners (ELL), free and reduced lunch
How to Find Special Education Data
• Students referred: Building Records, possibly District Records
• Students with IEP’s and EE data with option of multiple reports: IEPOINT Data Base (District Special Education Director or Coop Director identifies who has access and who uses the final data products )
• Special Ed Profile District Trend Data http://webprod1.isbe.net/LEAProfile
Challenge: Finding and Organizing Data on Placements and EE
Use of Out-of-home-School Tool (OHSC-T):– Different people have the data; Sp. Ed. and
Gen. Ed. data separate in most districts;– Who has data on students in ‘short term’ safe
school placements?– Coding and other ways that ‘hide’ data makes
the task hard; For example, students in certain placements didn’t “show up” in data review
– Students in 100% Sp. Ed but in home school didn’t come up in data
Out of home tool: Data trends
• AA students overrepresented in EBD and in restrictive settings
• AA students underrepresented in Autism • Many kids in restrictive/placement have
moved buildings a lot• Large #s of youth “not qualifying” for IEP
but in ‘safe school’ • Students with other “label” may have
behavior problems (ex. Students with LD in separate setting)
• Placement of students in100% Special Education in home school viewed as “better” EE data (but it is not….)
District “X”: Out of Home School • Most out of home placements are BD eligibility
• Most are for high school and middle with high school being greatest
• All out of home school placements at elementary came from one elementary school with two being from the MI program.
• The numbers of students going out of district has dropped dramatically.
• The numbers of students successfully transitioning back to their home school (from district off-site BD) has dramatically increased.
• Larger #’s of students 60% > in general ed instruction (see IEPoint Data and FACTS data)
Next Steps
• Continue to analyze data around elementary out of home school placements and build capacity in buildings to succeed with students in general education settings.
• Further review special education placement data:– Review trends of students in general education
60%. Or more to determine effectiveness of students returning from out of district?
Activity B: District Data Audit
Review the Data Audit for the District and the 2 Individual Schools. Process the data with the guide questions and suggest strategies for this district to improve the EE data.
Leadership Team
FundingVisibility Political
Support
Training Coaching Evaluation
Active Coordination
Local School Teams/Demonstrations
Taking it to Scale
District Summit Outcomes
Participants will be able to:
• identify the need for, membership of, function and mission of the district leadership team.
• identify and analyze relevant data to determine academic and behavioral needs of students within the district.
• integrate district initiatives to work more efficiently and avoid duplication of services.
District Summit Outcomes
Participants will be able to:
• self-assess the status of district-wide PBIS support.
• develop a plan for long-term sustainability of the PBIS process in district schools.
Statewide Participation in District Summits, 2007 - 2008
40
277
58
370
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
# Teams # Participants
2007
2008
45% 34%
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
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• Use of web-based data system
Wraparound
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
“Mary Ellen”
Home, School, Community Tool
Example of SIMEO-06Individual Student Data System
Using the Data to get to Strengths and Needs at Wrap meetings
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Baseline 3 months 6 months
Controls Anger Has friends Gets along with children
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Baseline 3 months 6 months
Controls Anger Has friends Gets along with children
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
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
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
• 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
Ongoing Self–Assessment of Secondary/Tertiary
ImplementationBuilding 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
System Action Planning in Progress: A Tertiary Demo
DistrictStudents with history of retention
– Students who are retained 2 or more times have a 90% chance of dropping out
– Tertiary level plans should address if students should be put in grades with peers who are their chronological age (similar to supports implemented for students with IEP’s.
– Plans should be comprehensive and address skill deficits students may have
– Concerns were also discussed regarding how to plan for these situations when it is in the best interest of the student to be in a higher grade, but credits are missing at a Middle School or High School Level. District team needs to action plan around these issues
Resources at www.pbisillinois.org
• “Commitments for Success” (click on “Getting Started”)
• “IL PBIS Network FY09 Phases of Implementation (PoI) Rubric (click on “Recognition Process,” then “Criteria”)
• Detailed Course Descriptions (click on “training”)