ORGANIZATION & DELIVERY OF TERTIARY SYSTEMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL Cynthia M. Anderson & Kimberli Breen University of Oregon & Illinois PBIS.

ORGANIZATION & DELIVERY OF TERTIARY SYSTEMS AT

THE DISTRICT LEVEL

Cynthia M. Anderson & Kimberli Breen

University of Oregon & Illinois PBIS

Challenge for Schools

Produce students who are academically and socially competent

But, must meet these outcomes in the face of…

Students from increasingly varied backgrounds

Decreasing funding

Problems at Schools

Struggling readers Can’t read at all Letter/word reversal Comprehension difficulties Memorization difficulties Retention problems English language learners Lack of number recognition Math fact deficits Homework completion Sloppy work Test anxiety Oral reading fluency Poor writing skills

Fights Property destruction Weapons violation Violence toward teachers Tobacco use Drug use Alcohol use Insubordination Noncompliance Late to class Truancy Inappropriate language Harassment Trespassing Vandalism Verbal abuse

Systems

SupportingStaff Behavior

Practices

Supporting Student Behavior

OUTCOMES

Outcomes

SupportingDecision Making

SWPBS: Universal Level

Intensive InterventionsSpecialized

IndividualizedSystems for Students with

High-Risk Behavior

Targeted InterventionsSpecialized Group

Systems for Students with At-Risk BehaviorUniversal Interventions

School-/Classroom-Wide Systems for

All Students,Staff, & Settings

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

School-Wide Positive Behavior

Support

Systems


Practices


OUTCOMES

Outcomes


Practices

Continuum of supports

Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment

School-Wide Prevention Systems

Tier 2/Secondary

Tier 3/

Tertiary

Small Group Interventions (CICO, etc)

In

terv

entio

nAssessm

en

tAdapted from T. Scott, 2004

Group Interventions with Individualized components

Function-based intervention

Attendance, RFA, ODR, GPA, etc.

CICO data, data from other targeted groups

Functional Behavior Assessment

Continuum of supports Documentation for targeted and intensive

interventions What intervention consists of Materials needed Data-based decision rules Plan for progress monitoring

Interventions for academic and social behavior linked

Practices

CICO Feature

s

BSP Feature

s

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

Practices

Multiple ways of identifying students who may benefit Office discipline referrals Request for assistance Formative evaluations

Sample Formative Evaluation

• Continuum of supports• Interventions for academic and social

behavior linked

Outcomes


Systems


Practices


OUTCOMES

Systems

Teams to support all students SWPBS/leadership team

Guide implementation of universal intervention Monitor outcomes and process (fidelity) Braid incoming initiatives into SWPBS Communicate with school community about SWPBS

Teams to Build systems and interventions for secondary

tertiary Progress monitor Conduct FBA & wraparound and build interventions

Example: IPBS SystemsGoal: Build systems and interventions for

secondary tertiary Initial “new teams training” & admin training

Focus on systems and progress monitoring Monthly district team meetings

Support plan coaching Systems for Tier II interventions

What skills/materials are needed? What are target behaviors? What is the goal? What defines progress and lack of progress?

CICO Feature

s

Example: IPBS Systems

Teams to support all students SWPBS/leadership team IPBS Team

Responsibilities Membership

Coordinator Administrator FBA coordinator Targeted interventions coordinator Academic specialist Representation from Regular and Special ed.

Minutes

Example: IPBS Systems Teams to support all students

SWPBS/leadership team IPBS team Student-focused team

Responsibilities Conduct functional behavior assessment Build support plan

Membership Someone with expertise in function-based

support Teacher(s), other stakeholders Parent, student

Systems

Teams to support all students System for monitoring outcomes Access to assistance

Assistance for teachers Assistance for team members

Link across continuum of PBS (universal, targeted, intensive)

School-family connection

Systems


Practices


OUTCOMES

Outcomes


Outcomes/Data

Individual students Tools for data collection Tools for easy graphing and evaluation Teachers receive feedback regularly Parents receive feedback regularly

Effects of system monitored Outcomes Fidelity Social validity

Daily Fidelity

Our Goal: Supporting students with significant challenges With positive outcomes With fidelity Over time

Challenges for Districts

Universal level of PBS available for ALL students Moving from one-student at a time, reactive

approaches to capacity within schools to support the behavior of ALL students?

Developing and implementing systems needed for tertiary implementation

Referrals to Special Education seen as the “intervention”

FBA viewed as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention

Interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect

Practices to be supported Targeted interventions Function-based support Data-based decision rules

Districts Support School

Practices

District support Investment in 2-4 targeted interventions Initial and on-going training for relevant

personnel Build capacity in efficient FBA Technical assistance available for comprehensive

FBA/BSP On-site coaching for new IPBS schools

Hiring practices promote implementation of evidence-based interventions

Districts Support School

Systems District teams support school teams

District leadership team District IPBS team

SWPBS a priority for district Funding available for school SWPBS

efforts

Districts Support School Use of Data

District provides schools data system—all tiers

District uses data to guide decision-making Training needs Support needs

District highlights important outcomes for stakeholders

IPBS Timeline

Illinois Example……

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 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 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

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

SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T

Small Group Interventions (CICO, SAIG, etc)

In

terv

entio

nAssessm

en

tIllinois PBIS Network, Revised Sept., 2008Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

Group Interventions withIndividualized Focus (CnC, etc)

Simple Individual Interventions(Brief 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.

Example: Illinois PBIS

Tertiary Systems Planning Team Secondary Systems Planning Team Secondary (Generic) Problem Solving

Team Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team Wraparound Team

District Tertiary Leadership Team

Example: Illinois PBIS’s Tertiary Planning Team

Administrator Social worker/guidance/school

psychologist General Educator Special Educator Tertiary Coach

Example: Illinois PBIS’s Tertiary System Planning Team

Building-based team Supported by Tertiary Coach Review/assess all levels of intervention

Data, referrals, team perspectives Focus on effectiveness of Tertiary

interventions (data, not individual students) Pull interventions down to Universal &

Secondary levels (efficiency) Strengthen Tertiary interventions with

Universal & Secondary (effectiveness) Support wraparound facilitators

Example: Illinois PBIS’ 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 (esp. since planning is done based on multiple-life domains). All relevant individuals/staff are invited.

What are the Outcomes?

So…..

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Students In Group % ODRs From Group

0 or 1 2 to 5 6+

Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 2005-06

Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (381 students)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


0 or 1 2 to 5 6+



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


0 or 1 2 to 5 6+



Year # of Students 6+

# of Students 2-5

# of Students 0-1

# of ODRs 6+

# of ODRs 2-5

# of ODRs 0-1

2005-06

4 11 366 28 36 21

2006-07

1 22 373 6 66 28

2007-08

0 7 401 0 17 19

Cohort 1: Elementary School “A”Triangle Data Breakdown

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


0 or 1 2 to 5 6+


Elementary School “B” (638 students)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


0 or 1 2 to 5 6+


Elementary School B (637 students)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


0 or 1 2 to 5 6+


Cohort 1: Elementary School “B” (596 students)

Cohort 1: Elementary School “B”

Triangle Data Breakdown

Year # of Students 6+

# of Students 2-5

# of Students 0-1

# of ODRs 6+

# of ODRs 2-5

# of ODRs 0-1

2005-06

0 10 628 0 26 39

2006-07

1 10 626 8 27 34

2007-08

3 12 581 18 29 28

Schools Reporting Tertiary Level Interventions

Schools Reporting Tertiary Level Interventions46

33

05

101520253035404550

2006-07 2007-08

num

ber o

f sc

ho

ols

Changes in Students Placed in Special Education – Hermansen Elementary School Valley View School District 365U

914

28

811

27

0

10

20

30

2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

nu

mb

er o

f stu

de

nts

Referred for Special Ed Placed in Special Ed

0

1

2

3

Year 1 Year 2

0=belo

w, 3

=pha

se II

I

Universal Secondary Tertiary

Tertiary Demonstration Implementation Improves at All Levels of PBIS

N=18 schools

Student Data for Home/School/Community Tool

0

1

2

3

4

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

1=h

igh

need

4=h

igh

str

en

gth

Behavioral: Pays attention to directions

Emotional: Responds emotionally like other youth

Home School Data

Can IPBS be implemented with fidelity?In the DistrictIn the schoolsWith individual students

Does IPBS affect outcomesAcross schoolsWithin a schoolFor individual students

Is IPBS viewed as valuable and feasible?

Evaluation of IPBS

Can Schools Implement IPBS?

Do Schools Implementing IPBS See Reductions in Student Problem Behavior?

Elementary School Example

3 Office Referrals4 Office Referrals5 Office Referrals6+ Office Referrals

Middle School Example


What is the relation between implementation and student problem behavior?

Schools Scoring >85 on Foundations of ISSET

Baseline Year 1


Schools Scoring <85 on Foundations of ISSET

Baseline Year 1


Did Consumers View IPBS as useful in schools?

The IPBS training and ongoing technical assistance was effective in helping our school build (or refine existing) systems for responding to students with behavior challenges.

The team is likely to sustain systems developed or refined as a result of participating in the IPBS process over the next 10 years.

Summary…

Multi-tiered, comprehensive supports needed to meet needs of students in schools

Effective and sustained implementation requires clearly articulated Interventions with empirical support Systems to support implementation Strategies to use data to guide decision-

making

Questions about Illinois PBIS Questions about IPBS?

Kim Breen Cynthia Anderson: [email protected]

Critical Features of Request for Assistance Forms

Demographic Information (teacher and student)

Definition of problem Routines analysis What has been tried Possible motivation

RFA Sample 1

RFA Sample 2

Data Base

ORGANIZATION & DELIVERY OF TERTIARY SYSTEMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL Cynthia M. Anderson & Kimberli Breen University of Oregon & Illinois PBIS.

Documents

schoolsproduce students

wide systems forall

proactiveschoolwide

schoolwide pbs

cico data

swpbsteams tobuild systems

school community

schoolsstruggling readerscant