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.