SWPBS: Leadership Team Training Cynthia, Doreen, Gloria, Jacquie, Jean, Kerinne, Maggie, George Project Hi’ilani Hawaii Department of Education University of Connecticut OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research December 3, 2007 www.pbis.org
SWPBS: Leadership Team Training. Cynthia, Doreen, Gloria, Jacquie, Jean, Kerinne, Maggie, George Project Hi’ilani Hawaii Department of Education University of Connecticut OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research December 3, 2007 www.pbis.org. Agenda Review/Overview. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
SWPBS:Leadership Team Training
Cynthia, Doreen, Gloria, Jacquie, Jean, Kerinne, Maggie, George
Project Hi’ilani
Hawaii Department of Education
University of Connecticut
OSEP Center on PBIS
Center for Behavioral Education & Research
December 3, 2007
www.pbis.org
Agenda Review/Overview
• Rationale & Guiding Principles
• Implementation Features & Examples
• Evaluation Outcomes
SW-PBS Logic!Successful individual student behavior support is linked to host environments or school climates that are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
SWPBS is about….
2001 Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence: Recommendations
• Change social context to break up antisocial networks
• Improve parent effectiveness
• Increase academic success
• Create positive school climates
• Teach & encourage individual social skills & competence
School-based Prevention & Youth Development Programming
Coordinated Social Emotional & Academic Learning Greenberg et al. (2003) American Psychologist
• Teach children social skills directly in real context
• “Foster respectful, supportive relations among students, school staff, & parents”
• Support & reinforce positive academic & social behavior through comprehensive systems
Characteristics of Safe School Center for Study & Prevention of Youth Violence
• High academic expectations & performance
• High levels of parental & community involvement
• Effective leadership by administrators & teachers
• A few clearly understood & uniformly enforced, rules
• Social skills instruction, character education & good citizenship.
• After school – extended day programs
Lessons Learned: White House Conference on School Safety
• Students, staff, & community must have means of communicating that is immediate, safe, & reliable
• Positive, respectful, predictable, & trusting student-teacher-family relationships are important
• High rates of academic & social success are important
• Positive, respectful, predictable, & trusting school environment/climate is important for all students
• Metal detectors, surveillance cameras, & security guards are insufficient deterrents
http://rtckids.fmhi.usf.eduKutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Lynn, N. (2006). School-based mental health: An empirical guide for decision makers. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. Louis De la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, Department of Child & Family Studies, Research & Training Center for Children’s Mental Health.
http://cfs.fmhi.usf.eduDuchnowski, A. J., Kutash, K., & Romney, S., (2006). Voices from the field: A blueprint for schools to increase involvement of families who have children with emotional disturbances. Tamp, FL: University of South Florida, The Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, Department of Child and Family Studies.
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
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingStudent Behavior
OUTCOMES
Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement
SupportingDecisionMaking
Basics: 4 PBS
Elements
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATA
OUTCOMES
DATA
• Clear definitions
• Efficient procedures
• Easy input/output
• Readable displays
• Regular review
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATA
OUTCOMES
OUTCOMES
• Data-based
• Relevant/valued
• Measurable
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATA
OUTCOMES
PRACTICES
• Evidence-based
• Outcome linked
• Cultural/contextual adjustments
• Integrated w/ similar initiatives
• Doable
SYSTEMS
• Training to fluency
• Continuous evaluation
• Team-based action planning
• Regular relevant reinforcers for staff behavior
• Integrated initiativesSY
STEM
S
PRACTICES
DATA
OUTCOMES
It’s not just about behavior!
Good Teaching Behavior Management
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity
Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems
+ If many students are making same mistake, consider changing system….not students+ Start by teaching, monitoring & rewarding…before increasing punishment
Team Managed
StaffAcknowledgements
ContinuousMonitoring
Staff Training& Support
AdministratorParticipation
EffectivePractices
Implementation
Relevant &MeasurableIndicators
Team-basedDecision Making &
Planning
ContinuousMonitoring
RegularReview
EffectiveVisual Displays
EfficientInput, Storage, &
Retrieval
Evaluation
Nonclass
room
Setting S
ystems
ClassroomSetting Systems
Individual Student
Systems
School-wideSystems
School-wide PositiveBehavior Support
Systems
1.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
• W/o formal feedback to encourage desired behavior, other forms of feedback shape undesired behaviors
Are “Rewards” Dangerous?
“…our research team has conducted a series of reviews and analysis of (the reward) literature; our conclusion is that there is no inherent negative property of reward. Our analyses indicate that the argument against the use of rewards is an overgeneralization based on a narrow set of circumstances.”– Cameron, 2002
• Cameron & Pierce, 1994, 2002
• Cameron, Banko & Pierce, 2001
Reinforcement Wisdom!
• “Knowing” or saying “know” does NOT mean “will do”
• Students “do more” when “doing works”…appropriate & inappropriate!
• Natural consequences are varied, unpredictable, undependable,…not always preventive
Clever Variations• Bus Bucks
• Super Sub Slips
• Golden Plunger
• G.O.O.S.E.
• First-in-Line
• Patriot’s Parking Pass
• Business Partner Discount
What really mattersis positive social
acknowledgement & interaction!!
Primary Prevention:School-/Classroom-Wide Systems forAll Students,Staff, & Settings
Secondary Prevention:Specialized GroupSystems for Students with At-Risk Behavior
Tertiary Prevention:Specialized IndividualizedSystems for Students with High-Risk Behavior
Trends in Suspension Rates for PBS Schools Implementing with Fidelity & Maturity
Trends in Black & Hispanic Suspension Rates for PBS Schools Implementing with Fidelity & Maturity
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
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
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)
0-1 '2-5 '6+
3%8%
89%
10%
16%
74%
11%
18%
71%
K=6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)
Mean Proportion of Students
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)Percentage of ODRs by Student Group
'0-1 '2-5 '6+
K-6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)
32%
43%
25%
48%
37%
15%
45%
40%
15%
Bethel School District ODR's by Grade Level
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grade Level
Num
ber o
f OD
R's 2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
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
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%
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