Response to Intervention III SW Behavioral Assessment

Neag School of Education

Response to Intervention IIISW Behavioral Assessment

George SugaiDirector CBER

Co-Director Center on PBISwww.CBER.org www.PBIS.org

PURPOSE

Extend RtI discussion from

individual/classroom to school-

wide data-based decision

making & interventions

• Brief RtI-SWPBS Review• SW data-based decision making• Data-based interventions

www.cber.org

www.pbis.org

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

SYST

EMS

PRACTICES

DATASupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement

SupportingDecisionMaking

IntegratedElements

RtI

RtI: Good “IDEiA” PolicyApproach or framework for redesigning

& establishing teaching & learning environments that are effective,

efficient, relevant, & durable for all students, families & educators

• NOT program, curriculum, strategy, intervention

• NOT limited to special education

• NOT new

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

All

Some

FewRTI

Continuum of Support for

ALL

Dec 7, 2007

Questions to Ponder• What is “scientifically/evidence-based”

intervention/practice?

• How do we measure & ensure “fidelity of implementation?”

• How do we determine “non-responsiveness?”

• Can we affect “teacher practice?”

• Do we have motivation to increase efficiency of “systems” organization?

• ???

Possible RtI OutcomesGresham, 2005

Responder Non-Responder

High Risk

False +Adequate response

True +Inadequate response

No Risk

True –Adequate response

False –Inadequate response

Avoiding False +/-

Need for….

SWPBS Conceptual Foundations

Behaviorism

ABA

PBS

SWPBS

Laws of Behavior

Applied Behavioral Technology

Social Validity

All Students

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

Agreements

Team

Data-based Action Plan

ImplementationEvaluation

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION

PROCESS

VIOLENCE PREVENTION

• Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence (2001)

• Coordinated Social Emotional & Learning (Greenberg et al., 2003)

• Center for Study & Prevention of Violence (2006)

• White House Conference on School Violence (2006)

• Positive, predictable school-wide climate

• High rates of academic & social success

• Formal social skills instruction

• Positive active supervision & reinforcement

• Positive adult role models

• Multi-component, multi-year school-family-community effort

Classroom

SWPBSPractices

Non-classroom Family

Student

School-w

ide

• Smallest #• Evidence-based

• Biggest, durable effect

1. Leadership team

2. Behavior purpose statement

3. Set of positive expectations & behaviors

4. Procedures for teaching SW & classroom-wide expected behavior

5. Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected behavior

6. Continuum of procedures for discouraging rule violations

7. Procedures for on-going data-based monitoring & evaluation

School-wide

• Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged

• Active supervision by all staff– Scan, move, interact

• Precorrections & reminders

• Positive reinforcement

Non-classroom

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5 minute observationDate

Baseline School-wide Intervention

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3/1

4/ 9

5

3/2

8/ 9

5

3/2

9/ 9

5

4/3

/ 95

4/4

/ 95

4/7

/ 95

4/1

0/ 9

5

4/1

7/ 9

5

4/1

8/ 9

5

4/2

6/ 9

5

4/2

7/ 9

5

4/2

9/ 9

5

5/1

/ 95

5/2

/ 95

5/3

/ 95

5/4

/ 95

5/9

/ 95

5/1

0/ 9

5

5/1

2/ 9

5

5/1

5/ 9

5

5/1

6/ 9

5

5/1

7/ 9

5

5/1

8/ 9

5

5/2

3/ 9

5

5/2

4/ 9

5

5/2

5/ 9

5

5/2

6/ 9

5

5/3

0/ 9

5

5/3

1/ 9

5

6/1

/ 95

6/2

/ 95

6/5

/ 95

6/6

/ 95

6/8

/ 95

6/9

/ 95

6/1

2/ 9

5

6/1

3/ 9

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Entering Cafeteria

Entering School

Exiting School

Problem Behaviors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Date

Baseline Pre-Correction Intervention

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3/1

4/ 9

5

3/2

8/ 9

5

3/2

9/ 9

5

4/3

/ 95

4/4

/ 95

4/7

/ 95

4/1

0/ 9

5

4/1

7/ 9

5

4/1

8/ 9

5

4/2

6/ 9

5

4/2

7/ 9

5

4/2

9/ 9

5

5/1

/ 95

5/2

/ 95

5/3

/ 95

5/4

/ 95

5/9

/ 95

5/1

0/ 9

5

5/1

2/ 9

5

5/1

5/ 9

5

5/1

6/ 9

5

5/1

7/ 9

5

5/1

8/ 9

5

5/2

3/ 9

5

5/2

4/ 9

5

5/2

5/ 9

5

5/2

6/ 9

5

5/3

0/ 9

5

5/3

1/ 9

5

6/1

/ 95

6/2

/ 95

6/5

/ 95

6/6

/ 95

6/8

/ 95

6/9

/ 95

6/1

2/ 9

5

6/1

3/ 9

50

10

20

30

40

50

60

Entering Cafeteria

Entering School

Exiting School

Problem BehaviorsStaff Interactions

Franzen, K., & Kamps, D. (2008).

• Classroom-wide positive expectations taught & encouraged

• Teaching classroom routines & cues taught & encouraged

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

• Active supervision• Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors• Frequent precorrections for chronic errors• Effective academic instruction & curriculum

Classroom

Allday & Pakurar (2007)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 BL CI/CO

CI/CO +75%

CI/CO +80%

CI/CO +90%

Helena

School Days

Per

cen

t of

Int

erva

ls E

nga

ged

in P

robl

em

B

ehav

ior

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jade

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Farrell

Began meds.

Class B Results

GOALS 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30

1. RESPECT OTHERS 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0

2. MANAGE SELF 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0

3. SOLVE PROBLEMS RESPONSIBLY

2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0

Name________________ Date ________

Rating Scale2 = Great1 = Ok0 = Goal Not Met

Goal _____Pts Possible _____Pts Received_____% of Pts _____Goal Met? Y N

Check In/Out Pt Card

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 BL CI/CO

CI/CO +75%

CI/CO +80%

CI/CO +90%

Helena

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jade

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Farrell

Began meds.

School Days

Per

cen

t of

Int

erva

ls E

nga

ged

in P

robl

em

Beh

avi

or

Class B Results + Composite Peers

Peer

Peer

Peer

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ben

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Marcellus

BL CI/CO

CI/CO75%

CI/CO80%

FB plan

FB plan 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Blair

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Olivia

Per

cen

t of

Int

erva

ls E

nga

ged

in P

robl

em

Beh

avi

or

Study 2 Results

School Days

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Olivia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Marcellus

BL CI/CO

CI/CO75%

CI/CO80%

FB plan

FB plan 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ben

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Blair

School Days

Per

cen

t of

Int

erva

ls E

nga

ged

in P

robl

em

Beh

avi

or

Peer

Peer

Peer

Peer

Study 2 Results + Composite Peer

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05

Months

Num

ber

of M

ajor

and

Min

or O

ffic

e D

isci

plin

e R

efer

rals

CICO begins 11/15

• Behavioral competence at school & district levels

• Function-based behavior support planning

• Team- & data-based decision making

• Comprehensive person-centered planning & wraparound processes

• Targeted social skills & self-management instruction

• Individualized instructional & curricular accommodations

Individual Student

% Intervals w/ P.B. for Bryce

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

Sessions**Data points with arrows indicate no medication

% I

nte

rva

ls w

/ P

.B.

Baseline

Contra-IndicatedIndicatedContra-

IndicatedIndicated

Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005

% Intervals w/ P.B. for Carter

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

Sessions

% In

terv

als

w/ P

.B.

Baseline IndicatedIndicated Indicated Modified

Contra-ndicated

Contra-Indicated

• Continuum of positive behavior support for all families

• Frequent, regular positive contacts, communications, & acknowledgements

• Formal & active participation & involvement as equal partner

• Access to system of integrated school & community resources

Family

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

ESTABLISHING 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• • • • • •

~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/PCP• Specialized individualised supports•

PRIMARY PREVENTION• Teach & encourage positive SW expectations• Proactive SW discipline• Effective instruction• Parent engagement•

Audit

1.Identify existing practices by tier

2.Specify outcome for each effort

3.Evaluate implementation accuracy & outcome effectiveness

4.Eliminate/integrate based on outcomes

5.Establish decision rules (RtI)

Practice Selection

•Evidence-based

•Measurable outcome aligned with need & student

•Rules for data-based decisions

•Integrated with related practices based on outcomes, need, student

•Implementation fidelity

•Continuous monitoring

Self-Assessment

EfficientSystems of Data

Management

Team-basedDecisionMaking Evidence-

BasedPractices

MultipleSystems

ExistingDiscipline

DataData-based Action Plan

SWIS

0

5

10

15

20

Ave R

efe

rrals

per

Day

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

School Months

Office Referrals per Day per MonthLast Year and This Year

Office Discipline Referrals

• Definition– Kid-Teacher-Administrator interaction

– Underestimation of actual behavior

• Improving usefulness & value– Clear, mutually exclusive, exhaustive definitions

– Distinction between office v. classroom managed

– Continuum of behavior support

– Positive school-wide foundations

– W/in school comparisons

0

10

20

30

40

50

Num

ber

of O

ffic

e R

efe

rrals

Bath RBus A Bus Caf ClassComm Gym Hall Libr Play G Spec Other

School Locations

Referrals by Location

0

10

20

30

40

50

Num

ber

of R

efe

rrals

Lang Achol ArsonBombCombsDefianDisruptDressAgg/fgtTheftHarassProp D Skip Tardy Tobac Vand Weap

Types of Problem Behavior

Referrals per Prob Behavior

Referrals by Problem Behavior

0

10

20

30

40

50

Num

ber

of O

ffic

e R

efe

rrals

Bath RBus A Bus Caf ClassComm Gym Hall Libr Play G Spec Other

School Locations

Referrals by LocationReferrals per Location

Referrals per Student

0

10

20

Num

ber

of R

efe

rrals

per

Stu

dent

Students

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Num

ber

of R

efe

rrals

7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:0010:3011:00 11:3012:0012:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30

Time of Day

Referrals by Time of DayReferrals by Time of Day

www.swis.org

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Mea

n P

ropo

rtio

n of

S

tude

nts

Met SET (N = 23) Not Met SET (N =12)

Central Illinois Elem, Middle SchoolsTriangle Summary 03-04

6+ ODR

2-5 ODR

0-1 ODR

84% 58%

11%

22%

05%20%

SWPBS schools are more preventive

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Mea

n P

ropo

rtio

n of

S

tude

nts

Met SET N = 28 Not Met SET N = 11

North Illinois Schools (Elem, Middle) Triangle Summary 03-04

6+ ODR

2-5 ODR

0-1 ODR

88% 69%

08%

17%

04%14%

SWPBS schools are more preventive

SWIS summary 07-08 July 2, 20082,717 sch, 1,377,989 stds; 1,232,826 Maj ODRs

Grade Range # Schools Mean Enroll.

Mean ODRs/100/ sch day

(std dev.)

K-6 1,756 445 ..35 (.45)

1/300 day

6-9 476 654 .91 (1.40)

1/100 /day

9-12 177 910 1.05 (1.56)

1/105/day

K-(8-12) 308 401 1.01 (1.88)

1/100 /day

National ODR/ISS/OSS July 2008

K-6 6-9 9-12# Sch 1756 476 177# Std 781,546 311,725 161,182# ODR 423,647 414,716 235,279

ISS # Evnt 6 38 38avg/100 # Day 12 49 61OSS # Evnt 6 30 24avg/100 # Day 10 74 61  # Expl 0.03 0.29 0.39

24091,254,4531,073,642

July 2, 2008

ODR rates vary by level

July 2, 2008

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

To

tal O

DR

s

Academic Years

FRMS Total Office Discipline Referrals

SUSTAINED IMPACTPre

Post

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

Tota

l O

ffic

e D

iscip

line R

efe

rrals

95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99School Years

Kennedy Middle School

Elementary School

Suspension Rate

Elementary School

531

346

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2004-05 2005-06

Middle SchoolOffice Referrals

Middle SchoolSuspension Rate

Middle School

FC, MD Trends in Suspension Rates for PBS Schools Implementing w/ Fidelity & Maturity

FC, MD Trends in Black & Hispanic Suspension Rates for PBS Schools Implementing w/ Fidelity & Maturity

www.pbis.org

Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2008). Is school-wide positive behavior support an evidence-based practice? OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Support.

90-School StudyHorner et al., in press

•Schools that receive technical assistance from typical support personnel implement SWPBS with fidelity

•Fidelity SWPBS is associated with▫Low levels of ODR

▫ .29/100/day v. national mean .34

▫Improved perception of safety of the school ▫ reduced risk factor

▫Increased proportion of 3rd graders who meet state reading standard.

Project Target: Preliminary FindingsBradshaw & Leaf, in press

• PBIS (21 v. 16) schools reached & sustained high fidelity

• PBIS increased all aspects of organizational health

• Positive effects/trends for student outcomes– Fewer students with 1 or more ODRs (majors + minors)

– Fewer ODRs (majors + minors)

– Fewer ODRs for truancy

– Fewer suspensions

– Increasing trend in % of students scoring in advanced & proficient range of state achievement test

SSS Mean Protective Factor Score: Illinois Schools 03-04 t = 7.21; df = 172; p < .0001

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Met SET Did Not Meet SET

Mea

n P

rote

ctiv

e Fa

ctor

Sco

re

N = 59 N = 128

12 schools 25 schools

SSS Mean Risk Factor Score: Illinois Schools 03-04 t = -5.48; df = 134; p < .0001

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Met SET Did Not Meet SET

Mea

n S

SS

Ris

k Fa

ctor

Sco

re

N = 59

12 schools

N = 128

25 schools

Elem With School-wide PBS

-5

0

5

10

15

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Schools

Ch

an

ge

fro

m 9

7-9

8 t

o 0

1-0

2

Elem Without School-wide PBS

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Schools

Ch

an

ge

fro

m 9

7-98

to 0

1-02

4J School District

Eugene, Oregon

Change in the percentage of students meeting the state standard in reading at grade 3 from 97-98 to 01-02 for schools using PBIS all four years and those that did not.

Mean ODRs per 100 students per school dayIllinois and Hawaii Elementary Schools 2003-04 (No Minors)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

N = 87 N = 53

Met SET 80/80 Did Not Meet SET

Mea

n O

DR

/100

/Day

.64

.85

Schools using SW-PBS report a 25% lower rate of ODRs

Illinois 02-03 Mean Proportion of Students Meeting ISAT Reading

Standardt test (df 119) p < .0001

46.60%

62.19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

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

Mea

n P

erce

ntag

e of

3rd

gra

ders

m

eetin

g IS

AT

Rea

ding

Sta

ndar

d

N =23 N = 8

Proportion of 3rd Graders who meet or exceed state reading standards (ISAT) in Illinois schools 02-03

t = 9.20; df = 27 p < .0001

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Not Meeting SET Meeting SET

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f S

tud

ents

Mee

tin

g

Rea

din

g S

tan

dar

ds

N = 23 N = 8

ODR Instruc. BenefitSpringfield MS, MD

2001-2002 2277

2002-2003 1322

= 955 42% improvement

= 42,975 min. @ 45 min.

= 716.25 hrs

= 119 days Instruc. time

ODR Admin. BenefitSpringfield MS, MD

2001-2002 2277

2002-2003 1322

= 955 42% improvement

= 14,325 min. @15 min.

= 238.75 hrs

= 40 days Admin. time

“Mom, Dad, Auntie, & Jason”

In a school where over 45% of 400 elem. students receive free-reduced lunch, >750 family members attended Family Fun Night.

I like workin’ at school

After implementing SW-PBS, Principal at Jesse Bobo Elementary reports that teacher absences dropped from 414 (2002-2003) to 263 (2003-2004).

“I like it here.”

Over past 3 years, 0 teacher requests for transfers

“She can read!”With minutes reclaimed from improvements in proactive SW discipline, elementary school invests in improving school-wide literacy.

Result: >85% of students in 3rd grade are reading at/above grade level.

“We found some minutes?”

After reducing their office discipline referrals from 400 to 100, middle school students requiring individualized, specialized behavior intervention plans decreased from 35 to 6.

• Measurable & justifiable outcomes

• On-going data-based decision making

• Evidence-based practices

• Systems ensuring durable, high fidelity of implementation

PBIS Messages

[email protected]

[email protected]

www.CBER.org www.PBIS.org