School-wide Positive Behavior Supports: Implications for Special Educators Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Intervention & Supports pbis.org
Jan 25, 2016
School-wide Positive Behavior Supports:
Implications for Special Educators
Tim Lewis, Ph.D.
University of Missouri
OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Intervention & Supports
pbis.org
The Challenge
• Students with the most challenging academic and social behavior problems need pro-active comprehensive and consistent systems of support
• School-wide discipline systems are typically unclear and inconsistently implemented – absence of a “social behavior curriculum”
• Educators often lack specialized skills to address severe problem behavior and learning challenges
• Pressure on schools to incorporate national and state initiatives such as Values Education, Anti-Bullying, Safe Schools and achieving “adequate yearly progress.” Many often have clearly defined outcomes without structures to reach or a framework for deciding what should be implemented when, for whom, and to what degree
Behavior Challenges
Common school response to problem behavior = “punishment” of
misbehavior and assumptions about appropriate behavior and/or seek out
alternative placements
The Danger….
“Punishing” problem behaviors (without a proactive support system) is associated with increases in (a) aggression, (b) vandalism, (c) truancy, and (d) dropping out. (Mayer, 1995, Mayer & Sulzar-Azaroff, 1991, Skiba & Peterson, 1999)
The Good News…
Research reviews indicate that the most effective responses to school violence are (Elliot, Hamburg, & Williams, 1998;Gottfredson, 1997; Lipsey, 1991,
1992; Tolan & Guerra, 1994):
• Social Skills Training• Academic Restructuring• Behavioral Interventions
Toward a SolutionThe answer is not the invention of new solutions, but the
enhancement of the school’s organizational capacity to:• Accurately adopt and efficiently sustain their use of
research-validated practices• Provide a Seamless continuum of behavioral and
academic support for all students• Be part of a district wide system of behavior support• Increased focus, teacher training, community training,
and funding for early intervention
School-wide Positive Behavior Support
SW-PBS is a broad range of systemic and individualized strategies for achieving important social and learning outcomes while preventing problem behavior
OSEP Center on PBIS
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingDecisionMaking
SupportingStudent Behavior
PositiveBehaviorSupport OUTCOMES
Social Competence &Academic Achievement
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
Universal Strategies: School-Wide
Essential Features• Statement of purpose• 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
(swis.org)• Family Awareness and Involvement
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
Respectful
•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 Elementary
Universal Strategies: Nonclassroom Settings
• Identify Setting Specific Behaviors• Develop Teaching Strategies• Develop Practice Opportunities and
Consequences• Assess the Physical Characteristics• Establish Setting Routines• Identify Needed Support Structures• Data collection strategies
Universal Strategies:Classroom
• Use of school-wide expectations/rules
• Effective Classroom Management– Behavior management– Instructional management– Environmental management
• Support for teachers who deal with students who display high rates of problem behavior
Why build strong universal systems of support?
• 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 across all learning environments
Outcomes of Universal Supports
FRMS Total Office Discipline ReferralsSustained Impact
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
Academic Years
Tota
l ODR
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
November December January February
Alton High SchoolAverage Referrals per Day
INSTRUCTIONAL HOURS GAINEDProjected (50%) vs. Actual (Aug-Dec 2000)
2145HOURS
4290HOURS
474 HOURS
0
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
UR
S
1671ADDITIONAL
Instructional Hours78%
Western Sydney RegionNumber of Long Suspensions
Percentage change from 2005 to 2006
-23%
11%
-7%
26%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
PBL Phase 1(13 schools)
PBL Phase 2(14 schools)
PBL Phase 3(28 schools)
Not PBL(183 schools)
Per
cen
tag
e C
han
ge
Elementary Office Refferals by Year
416
608
852
490
187
433
654
138180
108
385
134 140
218
296
87
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1E 2E 3E 4E 5E 6E 7E 8E
Pre
Post
MIddle School Office Referrals by Year
592
2514
2082
1948
465
1464
800
1031
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
9M 10M 11M 12M
2001-02
2002-03
Group Cost Benefit
Office Referral Reduction Across
12 PBIS schools= 5,606 If one Office Referral=15 minutes of administrator
time, then 5,606 x 15=84,090 minutes
1401.15 hours or
233 days of administrator time recovered and reinvested.
Group Cost Benefit
Office Referral Reduction
Across 12 PBIS Schools =5,606 If students miss 45 minutes of instruction for each
Office Referral, 5,606 X 45=252,270 minutes4204.50 hours or
700 days of instructional time recovered!!!!!
Self-contained Special Education Building - St. Louis
• Enrollment 200
• 50% free and
reduced lunch
• Ages 13 and up
• Programs
• 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
Mental Health Outcomes
• Does School-wide PBS fit within a comprehensive mental health model of prevention and intervention?
Minimizing and reducing “risk factors” by building “protective factors”
Risk and Protective Factor Comparison
SSS Risk and Protective Factor Scores (Illinois Schools 02-03)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Risk Factor Protective Factor
Me
an
SS
S F
ac
tor
Sc
ore
s
t = -2.17 (37) p < .036 t = 2.31 (37) p < .026
PartialN=21
FullN=18
PartialN=21
FullN=18
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
Pea
rson
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
NU
MB
ER
OF
RE
FE
RR
AL
S
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
MA
P P
ER
CE
NT
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 P
erce
ntag
e of
3rd
gra
ders
m
eetin
g IS
AT
Rea
ding
Sta
ndar
d
Small Group and Individual Interventions
Supporting Students At-Risk and those with Disabilities Within Their
Home School
Important Themes
• Part of a continuum – must link to school-wide PBS system
• Efficient and effective way to identify students
• Assessment = simple sort
• Intervention matched to presenting problem but not highly individualized
Small Group/TargetedAssessment
• Focus is on sorting student for service, not “diagnosis and placement.”
• Social-Behavioral Concerns– Social skills– Self-management
• Academic Concerns– Peer Tutors– Check in– Homework club
• Emotional Concerns– Adult mentors
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
NUM
BER
OF
REFE
RRA
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)
43
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Nu
mb
er
of
Beh
avio
r R
efe
rrals
YR2 YR3
Pals - Combined Discipline ReferralsSept-J an
YR2 vs. YR3
46%
Average5.38
Average2.88
AMOUNT OF TIME PER WEEK
SPENT WORKING DIRECTLY WITH STUDENT
9
6
3
0
0
0
10 minutes or less
10 to 20 minutes
20 to 30 minutes
30 to 40 minutes
40 to 60 minutes
More than 60 minutes
NUMBER OF TEACHERS
Individual Support Plans
• When small group not sufficient
• When problem intense and chronic
• Driven by Functional Behavioral Assessment
• Linked to school-wide system
Does Implementation of PBIS 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=38
N=17
Profile Effectiveness Scores (Illinois Schools 02-03)
0
1
2
3
4
School-wide Individual
Mea
n E
ffec
tiven
ess
Sco
res
t = 11.11 (335) p< .0001 t = 2.30 (27) p < .03
Partial
N=169
Full
N=223
Partial
N=17
Full
N=38
Individual PBS
Success requires:
1. Individual(s) with expertise in FBA-PBS
2. Fluency with a clear process among all staff including their role
3. A basic understanding of the Applied Behavior Analysis = Behavior is functionally related to the teaching environment
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
1 0 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
1 0 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
1 0 0
1 3 5 7 9 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 7 1 9 2 1 2 3 2 5 2 7 2 9 3 1 3 3 3 5 3 7 3 9 4 1 4 3 4 5 4 7 4 9
Daily Sessions
Jerrod
Emma
Matthew
BaselineNon-Function
Function Based InterventionBased Intervention
Academic Challenges
Common school response to academic challenges = send to specialists to “be fixed”
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
Response to Intervention
EVIDENCE-BASEDINTERVENTIONS
STUDENTPERFORMANCE
CONTINUOUSPROGRESS MONITORING
DATA-BASEDDECISION MAKING &PROBLEM SOLVING
• Consistent “core” curriculum implemented school-wide (research-based)
• Core instruction follows effective instructional practices (NWREL.org)
• Core instruction implemented with fidelity• Consistent, prioritized, and protected time allocated
to instruction• Data decision rules to identify a) those at high risk
and b) “non-responders” in a timely manner
Universal Supports: Core Instruction
Targeted Supports
• Part of a continuum – must link to core curriculum
• Efficient and effective way to identify students (Curriculum Based Measures; DIBELS) through FREQUENT monitoring
• Intervention matched to presenting problem but not highly individualized
• In addition to core curriculum
Targeted Supports
Intensify Instruction• Increase academic
engaged time• Small group / one:one• Increased
opportunities to respond
• Supplemental curriculum
Alter Instructional Environment
• Rules & routines• Attention signal• Ratio of positive /
negative statements• Efficient transitions• Active supervision
Individual/Intensive
• When small group/targeted not sufficient
• When data indicate high risk*
• Linked to core curriculum / outcomes
*limited data beyond literacy
Individual/ Intensive
• Targeted assessment (Curriculum Based Measures; DIBELS)
• Instruction targets remediation and/or accommodation
• Environment provides multiple and sustained engagement opportunities
• Monitor outcomes and make necessary adjustments (progress monitoring)
• In addition to core curriculum
Implications & Conclusion
Implications For Educators Concerned with Children and Youth At-risk and Those with Disabilities
• Prevention/early intervention• Schools w/PBS refer less to alternative school
(CPS)
• Continuum of Behavioral Supports (prevention – effective individual interventions)
• Generalization – building environments to increase the likelihood• IEP still individualized, behavioral objectives
mapped to school-wide expectations
Implications For Educators Concerned with Children and Youth At-risk and Those with Disabilities
• Build similar SW-PBS systems to facilitate transition from self-contained settings back to home school
• Build capacity in schools to support students with academic and social concerns– Technical assistance directing best practice v.
simple compliance
• Blend education and related initiatives– Safe Schools / Achievement / Mental Health
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).
School-wide Positive Behavior Supports:
Implications for Special Educators
Tim Lewis, Ph.D.
University of Missouri
OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Intervention & Supports
pbis.org