Response to Intervention: What’s Behavior Got to Do with It? George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of.

Response to Intervention: What’s Behavior Got to Do

with It?

George SugaiOSEP Center on PBIS

Center for Behavioral Education & ResearchUniversity of Connecticut

May 25 2011

www.pbis.org www.scalingup.org www.cber.org

PURPOSE

Describe features, practices,

research, & examples related

to RtI, PBIS, & pre-/in-service

professional development

RESEARCH & THEORY to

* Responsiveness to intervention

* Positive behavioral interventions & supports

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT to

* Evidence-based practice

* Classroom management

* School discipline

* Disability & diversity

PRACTICE

* Implementation fidelity

* Evaluation

“BIG PICTURE”

Describe how PBIS got start

Review PBIS & RtI definition & features

Link outcomes, data, practices, & systems

Describe examples

Model evidence-based approach

Stress importance of implementation fidelity

Remember IHE audience

“Notes to Self”

Foundations of

Positive Behavioral

Interventions &

Supports

1980s SW

Discipline Problem

Reactive

Non-constructive

Emphasis on punishment

Poor implementation

fidelity

Limited effects

Special

Education &

BD

“Abbreviated” SWPBS History

1980s RTC

1988 PBS

1991 Proj PREPARE

1997 EBS Demo 1997 IDEA-r

1998 PBIS-I

2000 PBIS TA Guide

2001 OR Beh Res Ctr 2002 PBIS-II

2004 PBS Impl Blue

2007 SISEP

2008 PBIS-IIIJan 2010

SWPBS Eval Blue

Mar 2010 SWPBS Impl

Blue

May 2010 SWPBS Train

Blue

2011 Implementation Sustainability &

Scaling

SWPBS FoundationsColvin, G., & Sugai, G. (1992). School-wide discipline: A behavior instruction model. 1992 Oregon conference monograph. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and solutions. In J. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.). The Oregon conference monograph (Vol. 6) (pp. 102-120). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Colvin, G., Kame’enui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with behavior problems in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193-256.

“Big Ideas” from Early Years

Teach & recognize behavior directly, school-wide

• Colvin & Sugai (1992)

Focus adult behavior in team-based SW action planning

• Colvin, Kame’enui, & Sugai (1993)

Consider ALL as foundation for some by establishing local behavioral expertise• Sugai & Horner (1994)

Integrate evidence-based practices in 3-tiered prevention logic• Walker, Horner, Sugai, Bullis, Sprague, Bricker, & Kaufman (1996)

“Early Triangle”

(p. 201)Walker, Knitzer,

Reid, et al., CDC

Prevention Logic for AllWalker et al., 1996

Decrease development

of new problem

behaviors

Prevent worsening of

existing problem

behaviors

Eliminate triggers &

maintainers of problem

behaviors

Teach, monitor, &

acknowledge prosocial behavior

Redesign of teaching environments…not students

Changing Adult Behavior

1.

“Change is slow,

difficult, gradual process

for teachers

2.

“Teachers need to receive regular

feedback on student learning

outcomes”

3.

“Continued support & follow-up

are necessary after initial training”

Guskey, 1986, p. 59

SWPBS Logic!Successful individual student behavior support is linked to host environments or school climates that are effective, efficient, relevant, durable, salable, & logical for all students(Zins & Ponti, 1990)

• Achieve desired outcome?Effective

• Doable by real implementer?Efficient

• Contextual & cultural?Relevant

• Lasting?Durable

• Transportable?Scalable

• Conceptually Sound?Logical

Host Environment Features

VIOLENCE PREVENTION

Positive predictable school-wide

climate High rates academic &

social success

Formal social skills instruction

Positive active supervision & reinforcement

Positive adult role models

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

effort PREVENTION SCIENCE

LITERATURE

• 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)

SWPBS (aka PBIS/RtI) is for enhancing adoption & implementation of

Continuum of evidence-based interventions to achieve

Academically & behaviorally important outcomes for

All students

Framework

SYST

EMS

PRACTICES

DATASupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement

SupportingDecisionMaking

IntegratedElements

Response-to-Intervention

&

Positive Behavioral

Interventions & Supports

Need for

better

Data-based

decision making

Early & timely

decision making

Comprehensive screening

Support for non-

responders

Implementation Fidelity

Instructional accountability & justification

Assessment-instruction alignment

Resource & time

use

RtI: Good “IDEA” Policy

Approach 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

educationNOT new

EARLY INFLUENCES

CBMEarly

Screening & Intervention

Prereferral Interventions

Teacher Assistance TeamingDiagnostic

Prescriptive Teaching

Behavioral & Instructional Consultation

Applied Behavior Analysis

Precision Teaching

IMPLEMENTATION W/ FIDELITY

CONTINUUM OF EVIDENCE-BASEDINTERVENTIONS

CONTENT EXPERTISE &

FLUENCY

TEAM-BASED IMPLEMENTATION

CONTINUOUSPROGRESS

MONITORING

UNIVERSAL SCREENING

DATA-BASEDDECISION MAKING

& PROBLEM SOLVING

RtI

Quotable Fixsen on Policy

“Policy is

Allocation of limited resources

for unlimited needs”

Opportunity, not

guarantee, for good action”

Training does not predict action”

“Manualized treatments have created overly rigid

& rapid applications”

SOUNDS

SIMPLE, BUT

IMPLICATIONS

FOR….

Curricular & instructional

decisions Special education functioning

General education functioning

Measurement, assessment, &

evaluation

Implementation accountability

Families & community interactions

Questions to PonderWhat 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?

???

RtI Application Examples

EARLY READING/LITERACY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

TEAMGeneral educator, special

educator, reading specialist, Title I, school psychologist, etc.

General educator, special educator, behavior specialist, Title I, school

psychologist, etc.

UNIVERSAL SCREENING Curriculum based measurement SSBD, record review, gating

PROGRESS MONITORING Curriculum based measurement ODR, suspensions, behavior

incidents, precision teaching

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS

5-specific reading skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension

Direct social skills instruction, positive reinforcement, token economy, active supervision, behavioral contracting,

group contingency management, function-based support, self-

management

DECISION MAKING RULES Core, strategic, intensive Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers

Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 13, 3-16.

Burke, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., & Sugai, G. (2003). The efficacy of function-based interventions for students with learning disabilities who exhibit escape-maintained problem behavior: Preliminary results from a single case study. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26, 15-25.

McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 146-154.

McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., and Braun, D. H. (2008). Reading skills and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education, 42, 131-147.

Nelson, J. R., Johnson, A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53-62.

Wang, C., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Rethinking the relationship between reading and behavior in early elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 100-109.

Academic-Behavior Connection

“Viewed as outcomes, achievement and

behavior are related; viewed as causes of

each other, achievement and behavior are

unrelated. In this context, teaching behavior

as relentlessly as we teach reading or other

academic content is the ultimate act of

prevention, promise, and power underlying

PBS and other preventive interventions in

America’s schools.”

Algozzine, Wang, & Violette (2011), p. 16.

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

Responsiveness to Intervention

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Circa 1996

RTIIntegrated Continuum

Mar 10 2010

Academic Continuum

Behavior Continuum

Etc.

Literacy & Writing

Numeracy &

SciencesSWPBS

Specials

Social Sciences

Responsiveness to Intervention

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

Universal

Targeted

Intensive

All

Some

FewContinuum of Support for

ALL

Dec 7, 2007

Universal

Targeted

IntensiveContinuum of

Support for ALL“Theora”

Dec 7, 2007

Science

Soc Studies

Reading

Math

Soc skills

Basketball

Spanish

Label behavior…not people

~80% of Students

~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• • • • • •

~15%

CONTEXTor

SETTING

Teacher Practice

Student Behavior

School Reform

District Operations

Continua of Responsiveness

& Support

MessageApply RtI Logic to School Improvement

- Current Practice -• Large # priorities

• Large # interventions

• Large professional development plan

• Large data collection plan

+ Rti Logic +• Screening for

unresponsiveness

• Small # priorities

• Continuous progress monitoring

• Continuous implementation fidelity

• Increase priority teaching & learning time

Adopting an

Implementation

Framework

Problem Statement

“We give schools strategies & systems for improving practice & outcomes, but implementation is not accurate, consistent, or durable, & desired outcomes aren’t realized. School personnel & teams need more than exposure, practice, & enthusiasm.”

www.scalingup.org

Dean FixsenKaren Blase

UNC

Funding Visibility PolicyPoliticalSupport

Training CoachingBehavioral Expertise

Evaluation

LEADERSHIP TEAM(Coordination)

Local School/District Implementation Demonstrations

SWPBS Implementation

Blueprint

www.pbis.org

Agreements

Team

Data-based Action Plan

ImplementationEvaluation

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION

PROCESS: “Getting Started”

44

1 2 3 40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

96

182

473

614

# WI Trained School Jul 2009 - Jan 2011

Jul ‘09 Jan ‘10 Jul ‘10 Jan ’11

• 614 trained schools (149 districts)

• 448 (73% of 614) implementing (SAS/TIC/BoQ)

• 129 (28.8% of 448) implementing w/ fidelity (SAS/TIC/BoQ)

PreK Elementary Middle High Alternative Multilevel0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

22

316

10276

12

86

# WI Trained Schools Jan 2011 by Level

1 2 3 40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

# WI Schools by Year & Level 2009-2011

Multilevel

Alternative

High

Middle

Elementary

PreK

Jul ‘09 Jan ‘10 Jul ‘10 Jan ’11

Are outcomes

measurable?

Where are you in implementation process?Adapted from Fixsen & Blase, 2005

• We think we know what we need, so we ordered 3 month free trial (evidence-based)

EXPLORATION & ADOPTION

• Let’s make sure we’re ready to implement (capacity infrastructure)

INSTALLATION

• Let’s give it a try & evaluate (demonstration)

INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION

• That worked, let’s do it for real (investment)

FULL IMPLEMENTATION

• Let’s make it our way of doing business (institutionalized use)

SUSTAINABILITY & CONTINUOUS

REGENERATION

SWPBS Implementation “Infidelity”

“SWPBS is intervention”

“Let’s schedule Rob Horner for our in-service day”

“Let’s do SWPBS during morning advisory”

“Can I visit your school & see SWPBS in action?”

“SWPBS is about giving kids tangible rewards”

“She’s a tier 3 kid; give her 2 day suspension”

“Shut up, & show me some respect”

Implementation

ChallengeLack of expert

capacity

Competing initiatives

Lacking implementation

framework

Nondata-based decision making Insufficient

resources

Limited differentiation

No theory of action or change

Evidence-based Practices

&

Implementation Fidelity

Detrich, Keyworth, & States (2007). J. Evid.-based Prac. in Sch.

Startw/

What Works

Focus on Fidelity

“Making a turn”

IMPLEMENTATION

Effective Not Effective

PRACTICE

Effective

Not Effective

Maximum Student Benefits

Fixsen & Blase, 2009

Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), 100-115

Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). The impact of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462-473.

Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133-148.

Bradshaw, C.P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K.B., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26.

Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J., (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133-145.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), 1-14.

RCT & Group Design PBIS Studies

• Reduced major disciplinary infractions

• Improvements in academic achievement

• Enhanced perception of organizational health

& safety• Improved school climate• Reductions in teacher reported bullying

behavior

Classroom

SWPBSPractices

Non-classroom Family

Student & Family

School-w

ide

• Smallest #• Evidence-based

• Biggest, durable effect

SCHOOL-WIDE1.1. 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

EVIDENCE-BASED

INTERVENTIONPRACTICES

CLASSROOM1.All school-wide2.Maximum structure & predictability in routines & environment3.Positively stated expectations posted, taught, reviewed, prompted, & supervised.4.Maximum engagement through high rates of opportunities to respond, delivery of evidence-based instructional curriculum & practices5.Continuum of strategies to acknowledge displays of appropriate behavior.6.Continuum of strategies for responding to inappropriate behavior.

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

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

~80% of Students

~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•

~15%

Teacher__________________________ Rater_______________________

Date___________

Instructional Activity Time Start_______

Time End________

Tally each Positive Student Contacts

Total # Tally each Negative Student Contacts

Total #

Ratio of Positives to Negatives: _____ to 1

Classroom Management: Self-Assessment

Classroom Management Practice Rating

1. I have arranged my classroom to minimize crowding and distraction Yes No

2. I have maximized structure and predictability in my classroom (e.g., explicit classroom routines, specific directions, etc.).

Yes No

3. I have posted, taught, reviewed, and reinforced 3-5 positively stated expectations (or rules).

Yes No

4. I provided more frequent acknowledgement for appropriate behaviors than inappropriate behaviors (See top of page).

Yes No

5. I provided each student with multiple opportunities to respond and participate during instruction.

Yes No

6. My instruction actively engaged students in observable ways (e.g., writing, verbalizing) Yes No

7. I actively supervised my classroom (e.g., moving, scanning) during instruction. Yes No

8. I ignored or provided quick, direct, explicit reprimands/redirections in response to inappropriate behavior.

Yes No

9. I have multiple strategies/systems in place to acknowledge appropriate behavior (e.g., class point systems, praise, etc.).

Yes No

10. In general, I have provided specific feedback in response to social and academic behavior errors and correct responses.

Yes No

Overall classroom management score:

10-8 “yes” = “Super” 7-5 “yes” = “So-So” <5 “yes” = “Improvement Needed”# Yes___

Name______________________________ Date_____________

Setting □ Hallway □ Entrance □ Cafeteria

□ Playground □ Other_______________Time Start_________

Time End _________

Tally each Positive Student Contacts Total #

Ratio of Positives to Negatives: _____: 1Tally each Negative Student Contacts Total #

Non-Classroom Management: Self-Assessment

1. Did I have at least 4 positive for 1 negative student contacts? Yes No

2. Did I move throughout the area I was supervising? Yes No

3. Did I frequently scan the area I was supervising? Yes No

4. Did I positively interact with most of the students in the area? Yes No

5. Did I handle most minor rule violations quickly and quietly? Yes No

6. Did I follow school procedures for handling major rule violations? Yes No

7. Do I know our school-wide expectations (positively stated rules)? Yes No

8. Did I positively acknowledge at least 5 different students for displaying our school-wide expectations?

Yes No

Overall active supervision score:

7-8 “yes” = “Super Supervision”

5-6 “yes” = “So-So Supervision”

<5 “yes” = “Improvement Needed”

# Yes______

Some Data

Educationally relevant outcomes

Implementation fidelity

Clearly defined & relevant indicators

System for easy input & output

Data rules for decision making

Team-based mechanism for action planning

Dat

a D

ecis

ion

Mak

ing