Including ALL Students & Positive School Culture Tim Lewis & George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS September 18, 2008

Including ALL Students & Positive School Culture

Tim Lewis & George SugaiOSEP Center on PBIS

September 18, 2008

www.pbis.org [email protected]

[email protected]

www.pbis.org

PURPOSEProvide brief overview of features, practices & systems of positive school culture for EVERYONE in school

School-wide Positive Behavior Support

2 PartsG: Principles & Features

T: Practices & Data

“141 Days!”

Intermediate/senior high school with 880 students reported over 5,100 office discipline referrals in one academic year. Nearly 2/3 of students have received at least one office discipline referral.

5,100 referrals =

76,500 min @15 min =

1,275 hrs =

159 days @ 8 hrs

BIG IDEASuccessful individual student behavior support is linked to host environments or school climates that are effective, efficient, relevant, durable, & scalable(Zins & Ponti, 1990)

Evaluation Criteria

SWPBS is for EVERYONE by….

What isSchool-wide Positive

Behavior Support (PBIS)?

SYST

EMSPRACTICES

DATASupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement

SupportingDecisionMaking

IntegratedElements

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

RtI

Response to Intervention

Agreements

Team

Data-based Action Plan

ImplementationEvaluation

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION

PROCESS

Classroom

SWPBSPractices

Non-classroom Family

Student

School-w

ide

• Smallest #• Evidence-based• Biggest, durable effect

SCHOOL-WIDE1. Common purpose & approach to discipline

2. Clear set of positive expectations & behaviors

3. Procedures for teaching expected behavior

4. Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected behavior

5. Continuum of procedures for discouraging inappropriate behavior

6. Procedures for on-going monitoring & evaluation

INTERVENTION

PRACTICES

CLASSROOM1.Classroom-wide positive expectations taught & encouraged

2.Teaching classroom routines & cues taught & encouraged

3.Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adult-student interaction

4.Active supervision

5.Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors

6.Frequent precorrections for chronic errors

7.Effective academic instruction & curriculum

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

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

ESTABLISHING A 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• • • • • •

Implementation Levels

Student

Classroom

School

State

District

Country

PBS Implementation Blueprint www.pbis.org

Funding Visibility PoliticalSupport

Training Coaching Evaluation

Local School Teams/Demonstrations

PBS Systems Implementation Logic

Leadership TeamActive & Integrated Coordination

ValuedOutcomes

ContinuousSelf-Assessment

Practice Implementation

EffectivePractices

RelevancePriority Efficacy

Fidelity

SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION & DURABLE RESULTS THROUGH CONTINUOUS REGENERATION

Tim:More Data &

Examples

Tim

Impact of SW-PBS: Implications For Educators Concerned with Children and Youth At-risk and

Those with Disabilities

Tim Lewis, Ph.D.University of Missouri

Starting Point

• We can’t “make” students learn or behave• We can create environments to increase

the likelihood students learn and behave• Environments that increase the likelihood

are guided by a core curriculum and implemented with consistency and fidelity

Universal School-Wide Features• Clearly define expected behaviors (Rules)• Procedures for teaching & practicing expected

behaviors• Procedures for encouraging expected behaviors• Procedures for discouraging problem behaviors• Procedures for record-keeping and decision

making



Secondary Prevention:

Specialized GroupSystems for

Students with At-Risk Behavior


IndividualizedSystems for

Students with High-Risk Behavior

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%



SUPPORT

I am…. All Settings Classroom

Hallways Cafeteria Bathrooms Playground Assemblies

Safe •Keep bodies calm in line•Report any problems•Ask permission to leave any setting

Maintain personal space

WalkStay to the right on stairsBanisters are for hands

•Walk•Push in chairs•Place trash in trash can

Wash hands with soap and waterKeep water in the sinkOne person per stall

Use equipment for intended purposeWood chips are for the groundParticipate in school approved games onlyStay in approved areasKeep body to self

•Walk•Enter and exit gym in an orderly manner

Respect-ful

•Treat others the way you want to be treated•Be an active listener•Follow adult direction(s)•Use polite language•Help keep the school orderly

Be honestTake care of yourself

Walk quietly so others can continue learning

Eat only your foodUse a peaceful voice

Allow for privacy of othersClean up after self

•Line up at first signal •Invite others who want to join in•Enter and exit building peacefully•Share materials•Use polite language

Be an active listenerApplaud appropriately to show appreciation

A Learner

•Be an active participant•Give full effort•Be a team player•Do your job

•Be a risk taker•Be prepared•Make good choices

Return to class promptly

•Use proper manners•Leave when adult excuses

•Follow bathroom procedures•Return to class promptly

•Be a problem solver•Learn new games and activities

•Raise your hand to share•Keep comments and questions on topic

Benton

FRMS Total Office Discipline Referrals

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06

Tota

l OD

Rs

INSTRUCTIONAL HOURS GAINEDProjected (50%) vs. Actual (Aug-Dec 2000)

2145HOURS

4290HOURS

474 HOURS0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Total Instructional Hours Lost 99-00

Projected Instructional Hours Lost Actual Instructional Hours Lost

HO

URS

1671ADDITIONAL

Instructional Hours78%

Self-contained Special Education Building - St. Louis

• Enrollment 200

• 50% free and reduced lunch

• Ages 13 and up

• Serves 8 component districts

• Physically Impaired• Autism• Language Impaired• Hearing Impaired• Multiple/ Severe

Disabilities • Emotional/ Behavioral

Disorder

Self Contained School

• Supported by PBS Coach• Prior to implementing school-wide system,

Identified 33 students (17%) with chronic behavior teachers felt would require intensive individualized plans

Reported Results

• Reduction in inappropriate behavior (verbal aggression, sleeping in class, off task, disruption)

• Increased prosocial behaviors and task completion

• Post universal systems, only 5 students (2%) required intensive individualized support plans

Prevention & Supports For Identified and At-risk Students

Social Behavior

Does Implementation of SW-PBS improve individual interventions?

• Illinois “profile” analysis.– Assessment of intervention effectiveness

Very Low, Low, Med, High, Very High 0 1 2 3 4

– School-wide– Individual Intervention

N=223

N=169

N=38N=17

Profile Effectiveness Scores (Illinois Schools 02-03)

0

1

2

3

4

School-wide Individual

Mea

n Ef

fect

iven

ess

Scor

es

t = 11.11 (335) p< .0001

t = 2.30 (27) p < .03

Partial

N=169

Full

N=223

Partial

N=17

Full

N=38

Mental Health Outcomes

• Does School-wide SW-PBS fit within a comprehensive mental health model of prevention and intervention?

Minimizing and reducing “risk factors” by building “protective factors”

Correlation of Risk Variables with EBS Survey Score

N = 13 Middle SchoolsSprague, Walker, Sowards, Van Bloem, Eberhardt & Marshall, 2001

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

Risk Variables

Pear

son

R

Series1 0.017896 -0.119001 0.115955 -0.291545 -0.513794 -0.376016

Free & R Acd Fail Mobiltiy A&D Crm ASB Total

A&D = Alcohol and Drug; ABS = Anti-social Behavior Scale

Impact on Moving Students to More Restrictive Settings

Columbia Public Schools• Elementary Schools who implement SW-PBS referred

students to alternative/special school at lower rates compared to schools who were not implementing SW-PBS (r = -0.4306, p < 0.01)

• Elementary Schools who implemented SW-PBS have less recidivism to alternative settings once students returned to home-school

Prevention & Supports For Identified and At-risk Students

Achievement

BALLWIN ACHIEVEMENT PBS

405

302

185

760

32.531

58.2

47.4

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 2001 2002 2003

YEAR

NUM

BER

OF

REFE

RRAL

S

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

MAP

PER

CENT

ILE

Office Referrals Proficient or Advanced on MAP

Illinois 02-03 Mean Proportion of Students Meeting ISAT Reading Standard

t test (df 119) p < .0001

46.60%

62.19%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

PBIS NOT in place N = 69 PBIS IN place N = 52

Mea

n Pe

rcen

tage

of 3

rd g

rade

rs

mee

ting

ISAT

Rea

ding

Sta

ndar

d

Small Group and Individual Interventions

Supporting Students At-Risk and those with Disabilities Within Their

Home School



Secondary Prevention:

Specialized GroupSystems for

Students with At-Risk Behavior


IndividualizedSystems for

Students with High-Risk Behavior

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%



SUPPORT

Small Group/Targeted Essential Features

• Part of the continuum – must link to school-wide PBS system

• Efficient and effective way to identify students

• Intervention matched to presenting problem but not highly individualized

STUDENTS RECEIVING A "BEHAVIOR PLAN"EIGHT OR MORE REFERRALS

1999/2000 vs. 2000/2001

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

A* B C D E F* G H I J* K L M N O P

STUDENT NAME

NU

MB

ER O

F R

EFER

RA

LS

REFERRALS 99-00 REFERRALS 00-01

AVERAGE PERCENT DECLINE IN REFERRALS

50%%

*STUDENT LEFT SCHOOL DISTRICT BEFORE THE END OF THE ACADEMIC YEAR

SSRS-T Social Skills

Non PBS PBS

Pre Mean 72.8 (56-86) 78.3 (70-84)

Post Mean 80 (61-103) 90 (77-125)

P Value .11 .04*

SSRS-T Problem Behavior

Non PBS PBS

Pre Mean 123.6 (110-138) 124.8 (113-133)

Post Mean 121.4 (102-139) 124.7 (115-138)

P Value .50 .97

* Significance at the .05 P Value

Table 1. Pre- and Posttest Scores for Subjects on Dependent Variable (SSRS-T)

Intensive / Individual Essential Features

• Linked to school-wide system• When small group not sufficient• When problem intense and chronic• Driven by Functional Behavioral

Assessment

Process (FBA to PBS)

• Conduct functional behavioral assessment

• Create plan based on functional assessment outcome

• Develop infra-structure to support behavior change (school environment must change)

Structural Analysis Setting Factors Assessment Tool

• Level 1: Classroom Set-up and Structure

• Level 2: Context Specific Activities

• Level 3: Instructional Delivery and Tasks

• Level 4: Student Behavior

Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Johnson, N., & Trussell, R. (2004). Toward a structural assessment: Analyzing the merits of an assessment tool for a student with E/BD. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 25-40.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Baseline Level 1 Level 1 & 2 Level 1, 2 & 3 Follow-Up

Mea

n Pe

rcen

t of T

each

er B

ehav

ior

High Structure Materials Accessiblity Rules Visible Assistance Consistent Answering Consistent

Field Elementary School

SW-PBS and RtI with Literacy

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

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

Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success

Field Elementary School• High Diversity

– School has 290 students; 50% minority; 20% English Language Learners; 13% special education

• Instructional leader turnover• Poverty

– 79% of students qualify for free and reduced lunches

• Highly transient population


+ Teachers and Staff committed to the increasing academic and social successof all students

+ A committed Principal who supported faculty in their efforts to change the way the taught to improve children’s lives


• Academic Standing– Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)

• 5% of all students scored proficient in 2005, according to the Missouri Assessment Program. Breakdown by ethnicity:

– 0% African American– 18% Caucasian

–0% Students with disabilities– 0% English Language Learners– 7% Free/Reduced Priced Lunch


• Literacy• In 2004–05, 44% students required

intensive support for reading and writing

• Social Behavior• In 2003-04 Averaging 10.4 discipline

referrals per day

Positive Behavior Supports

MU College of Education —140 years of discovery, teaching and

learning

Impact

From 10.4 per dayTo 1.6 per day

Impact

• Literacy• In 2004–05, 44% students required intensive

support for reading and writing. This number shrunk to 31% in 2007–08.

• Shifted to a structured, explicit, research-based core literacy program with three tiers:

– One: Benchmark– Two: Strategic Intervention– Three: Intensive Intervention

• Monitor progress in fall, winter and spring

Impact

• Improved Academic Standing– Annual Yearly Progress

• In 2007, 27% of Field’s students scored proficient in 2007 (up from 5%).

• African American: 0% improved to 16%• Caucasian: 18% improved to 57%

• Students with disabilities: 0% improved to 25%

• English Language Learners: 0% improved to 27%

Implications & Conclusion

SW-PBS allows educators to build environments that increase the likelihood of student academic and social behavior success through a systemic and supportive process

On school reform…

Kauffman states “…attempts to reform education will make little difference until reformers understand that schools must exist as much for teachers as for student. Put another way, schools will be successful in nurturing the intellectual, social, and moral development of children only to the extent that they also nurture such development of teachers.” (1993, p. 7).

Including ALL Students & Positive School Culture Tim Lewis & George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS September 18, 2008

Documents