The Process of Change: Resolving Barriers to Universal Intervention Implementation Sharon Lohrmann Stacy Martin Sonia Patil.

The Process of Change: Resolving

Barriers to Universal Intervention

Implementation

Sharon LohrmannSharon Lohrmann

Stacy MartinStacy Martin

Sonia PatilSonia Patil

Visit www.njpbs.org for handouts. Click on

Upcoming Events and Scroll to the APBS listing

Buy-In: (n.) Buy-In: (n.) Commitment to Commitment to achieving a achieving a shared goalshared goal

Successful change begins with Successful change begins with acquiring employees’ buy-in to acquiring employees’ buy-in to the change process …(the change process …(MSN MSN Encarta)Encarta)

But, what does buy-in really mean?But, what does buy-in really mean?

Buy-in and commitment to change is a dynamic

processConclusions drawn from sustainability

research: Knowing that a practice results in good outcomes is insufficient

for implementation (Gersten, Chard, & Baker 2000).

Teachers’ beliefs, feelings of self-efficacy, attitudes, and perceptions affect the extent to which teachers try new strategies and persist using them when confronted with challenges (Klinger, Ahwee, Pilonieta, Merendez, 2003).

Sustained use of innovative, research based practices seem directly related to practices that teachers view as being helpful in working with difficult-to- teach students (Gersten et al., 2000).

Teachers can benefit from on-going sources of support that helps them to think deeply about their practice (Vaughn, Klinger, & Hughes 2000).

Motivation for this Line of Motivation for this Line of ResearchResearch

• Schools in NJ are targeted based on Schools in NJ are targeted based on need for corrective actionneed for corrective action

• Schools struggle with the weight of Schools struggle with the weight of pressures to “fix the problem”pressures to “fix the problem”

• We want to understand what we can We want to understand what we can do to prevent as much of the do to prevent as much of the resistance upfront as opposed to resistance upfront as opposed to trying to reframing it in the middletrying to reframing it in the middle

Part of a Line of Research Part of a Line of Research on Attitude and Belief on Attitude and Belief

Barriers to PBSBarriers to PBS• Universal InterventionUniversal Intervention

– Lohrmann, Martin, & Patil (2007* Lohrmann, Martin, & Patil (2007* unpublished pilot)unpublished pilot)

– Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, & Palmieri Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, & Palmieri (2008)(2008)

• Individual Student PlanningIndividual Student Planning– Lohrmann & Bambara (2006)Lohrmann & Bambara (2006)– Bambara, Lohrmann, Nonnemacher, Bambara, Lohrmann, Nonnemacher,

Goh, & Kern (in progress)Goh, & Kern (in progress)

Purpose of the Study

To understand, from the perspectives of external and internal coaches: The types of barriers that interfere with

the adoption of universal interventionsThe factors that contribute to barrier

conditionsThe extent to which barriers are

resolvedThe factors/process that leads to

resolution

Procedures: Sampling Process

1. Invitation and interview with state coordinator/director for PBS initiative

• Background and Context information

2. Distribution of invitation through the state network for external coaches

3. External coach screened and identified a focus school

4. External coach interviewed5. External coach nominates the internal

coach/key school contact6. Internal coach interviewed

Recruitment Challenges

1.1. We interviewed 11 state coordinators We interviewed 11 state coordinators but recruitment efforts only produced but recruitment efforts only produced pairs from 5 of those statespairs from 5 of those states

2.2. Difficulty recruiting participantsDifficulty recruiting participants1.1. Limitations imposed by our Institutional Limitations imposed by our Institutional

Review BoardReview Board

2.2. Not a lot of response from recruitment Not a lot of response from recruitment efforts – especially school personnelefforts – especially school personnel

3.3. Harder to find implementation at the Harder to find implementation at the middle levelmiddle level

Brief Overview of StatesBrief Overview of States

State Implementation Model

Training Model

State A

•400 schools•Department of Education funding•Began in 1995/evolved to school-wide

•District initiative - @ least 3 schools•District coordinator and building level coaches•Administrator orientation•State project liaison provides training and monthly on site support to the coaches •District coordinator provides day to day support

•3 Day Summer Training•Begin with UI•Move to upper tiers based on 80% criteria and need

State B

•280 schools•Department of Education funding•Began 9 years ago

•Administrator orientation•Individual schools can apply with the intent to go “district-wide”•District and building coaches•Regional consultant provides monthly on site support to the leadership team

•Administrators attend a 1 day training•UI team attends a 3 day summer institute•Coach attends off site meetings 4x a year

Brief Overview of StatesBrief Overview of StatesState Implementation

ModelTraining Model

State C

•Department of Education & Safe /Drug Free Schools funding•Began 6 years ago

•Individual schools can apply•Two part start: administrative level buy in and staff buy in•State project staff provide training•Contracted facilitators provides monthly on site support to the school team

•Training on 3 tiers across three years•UI team receives 6 days of training distributed over 2 years

State D

•300 schools•Department of Education –Special Education funding•Began about 8 years ago

•Regional consortiums to build coaching capacity•Application process with administrator commitments•State project staff and regional consultants provide training•Regional consultants provide on site support to the school tem•District coach provides ongoing support

•2 day training the first year; 1 day training the second•Annual coaching conferences

Brief Overview of StatesBrief Overview of States

State Implementation Model

Training Model

State E

•600 schools•Department of Education funding•8 years

•District – wide initiative•Individual schools can apply•Regional consultants provide coordination and support to district coaches – sometimes also provide the training•District coaches provide training and on site support to schools

•2 Day Summer Training•Begin with UI and move to upper tiers based on need

Procedures – Inclusion Criteria

• SchoolsSchools– Middle Level 5Middle Level 5thth-8-8thth grade grade– Minimum SET/Benchmarks score of Minimum SET/Benchmarks score of

70%70%– Implementing for 1-3 years post the Implementing for 1-3 years post the

first instructional event kick offfirst instructional event kick off– Considered by external coach to have Considered by external coach to have

been a school that struggled initially been a school that struggled initially but ultimately achieved successbut ultimately achieved success

School SummarySchool Summary

• 1 - 5-6 school1 - 5-6 school• 7 - 6-8 schools7 - 6-8 schools• 1 - 7-8 school1 - 7-8 school• Average SET Score: 89% (r=80%-Average SET Score: 89% (r=80%-

99%)99%)• Mostly rural schoolsMostly rural schools

SchoolsSchoolsScho

olGrades(Studen

ts)

SET Score

Characterized as:

1 5-6(350)

80% •A rural community•Mostly Caucasian

26-8

(1500)89% •A rural community

•A rapidly growing school with changing demographics

36-8 in a 6-12 blg

(600)

87% •As a small town•A school within a school •Having substantive poverty issues

SchoolsSchoolsScho

olGrades(Studen

ts)

SET Score

Characterized as:

46-8


•Having a high number of F & R lunch rates•A very diverse school

56-8

(500)80% •A semi rural

community•Having 70% F & R lunch rates•Mostly Caucasian

66-8

(800)90% •A semi rural

community changing to a more suburban community•Having 30% F & R lunch rates

SchoolsSchoolsScho

olGrades(Stude

nts)

SET Scor

e

Characterized as:

76-8

(410)90% • A Moderate sized town

•Having 70% F & R lunch rates•Having a substantive homelessness problem among student

87-8


•Having conflicting socioeconomic levels

96-8


•Having 70% F & R lunch rates•A split between African American and Caucasian


• External CoachesExternal Coaches– At least 2 years experience providing At least 2 years experience providing

direct on-site assistance to schools to direct on-site assistance to schools to implement the universal level of the implement the universal level of the SWPBS prevention model; SWPBS prevention model;

– Has on-site contact with schools and the Has on-site contact with schools and the school’s universal intervention team – at school’s universal intervention team – at least 4 visits in a year; andleast 4 visits in a year; and

– Worked with at least 3 schools Worked with at least 3 schools implementing the SWPBS modelimplementing the SWPBS model

18 Participants (9 pairs) Across 5 States

9 External Coaches • Mean 16.5 years (r=8-29) experience in

education• Mean 5 years (r=2-8) experience with the

focus team/school• Average 28 (r=4-60) schools supported to

implement UI• 2 external coaches worked for the district• 7 external coaches worked for a state

initiative either directly or through a university contract

• 8 with masters; 1 with a PhD• 8 learned SWPBS through inservice with the

state team; 1 learned through inservice from the OSEP center; 1 had coursework


• Internal Coaches– Designated as a coach or chair of a

middle school level universal intervention team;

– A member of the team since the first training the school received on universal interventions; and

– Employed full time by the school in which they serve as the team chair.

18 Participants (9 pairs) Across 5 Stateses

9 Internal Coaches*• Mean 15.5 years (r= 8-26) experience in

education• Mean 4.5 years (r= 3-6) experience with the

team/school• 8 were building based• 1 had cross building responsibilities • 1 Bachelors; 4 with Masters; 1 Ed.S• All learned SWPBS through inservice with the

state team; in addition, some had exposure through conferences or training through the OSEP center

**3 internal coaches did not return the demographic form (yet)

Interview ProceduresInterview ProceduresInterviews

• Semi-structured, open-ended• Generally 90 minutes• Audio taped and transcribed • Interview guide with three core sections

• Context: description of school, start up activities, team, strengths/needs of the school prior to implementation, implementation description

• Types of implementation support provided/received

• Barriers – Description of the barrier– Impact on implementation– Contributing factors– Resolution– Explanation of resolution– Strategies

Data AnalysisConsensual Qualitative Research (CQR)

(Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997)• Research Team • Rotating Roles (interviewers, primary coders,

auditors)• Multiple Stages of Data Analysis (audited,

consensual agreement)

Stage 1: Domain Code DevelopmentStage 2: Domaining (Coding)Stage 3: AbstractingStage 4: Cross Analysis and RecodingStage 5: Final Thematic Analysis

Findings

Types of Barriers Problematic

Across all participants, the Across all participants, the number one problem number one problem

encountered was the lack of encountered was the lack of consistency in consistency in

implementationimplementation


• Each school had it’s own story for how it Each school had it’s own story for how it arrived at inconsistent implementation and arrived at inconsistent implementation and how implementation issues were resolved.how implementation issues were resolved.

• What was common across schools was that What was common across schools was that “the problem” and “the resolution” were “the problem” and “the resolution” were some combination ofsome combination of::– Degree of administrative supportDegree of administrative support– Degree of staff “cognitive” readiness for PBSDegree of staff “cognitive” readiness for PBS– The general stability of and satisfaction with The general stability of and satisfaction with

the school contextthe school context


Attitude and Belief Issues• Knee jerk reaction to teaching and Knee jerk reaction to teaching and

reinforcing social behaviors: reinforcing social behaviors: – “kids should know what to do”– “this won’t work”– “focus on punitive consequences”

• Perception of usefulness for the Perception of usefulness for the school:school:

– “we don’t need this”– “it’s a special education thing”– “what we are doing is fine”– “just another initiative that will go away”– “it’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of”


Attitude and Belief Issues

Teaching and Reinforcing Teaching and Reinforcing

Social BehaviorsSocial BehaviorsExternExtern

al al CoachCoach

eses

InternaInternall

CoacheCoachess

Teaching Social BehaviorsTeaching Social Behaviors 88 22

Reinforcing Social BehaviorsReinforcing Social Behaviors 33 88

Focus on Punitive Focus on Punitive ConsequencesConsequences

22 11

The student is the problemThe student is the problem 22 00


Attitude and Belief IssuesPerceived Usefulness Perceived Usefulness ExternExtern

al al CoachCoach

eses

InternaInternall

CoacheCoachess

It won’t workIt won’t work 33 11

What we are doing is fineWhat we are doing is fine 11 33

Just another initiativeJust another initiative 11 22

It’s a special education It’s a special education thingthing

11 11


Administrative Support Issues• Described asDescribed as: inconsistent, unhelpful, : inconsistent, unhelpful,

obstructive, conflictual, or passivityobstructive, conflictual, or passivity• Examples of the implication Examples of the implication of of

administrative support were:administrative support were:– The team not having the resource they needThe team not having the resource they need– The team not getting the green light to The team not getting the green light to

implementimplement– Staff receiving mixed messagesStaff receiving mixed messages– Planning efforts stallingPlanning efforts stalling– Negative or “opting out” staff were reinforcedNegative or “opting out” staff were reinforced

Contributing Factors

Contributing Factors(Setting Events?)

• Contributing factors were historic or Contributing factors were historic or current contextual events that set a tone or current contextual events that set a tone or atmosphere that was inhospitable for atmosphere that was inhospitable for cultivating staff buy in to PBS.cultivating staff buy in to PBS.

• Interview Question: Interview Question: In the larger In the larger context of the school/district/community, context of the school/district/community, what factors, if any, do you think what factors, if any, do you think contributed to difficulties you experienced contributed to difficulties you experienced with staff buy in to PBS?with staff buy in to PBS?

Factors Described as Contributing to Attitude

and Belief IssuesContributing FactorsContributing Factors ExternExtern

al al CoachCoach

eses

InternaInternal l

CoacheCoachess

Administrative support Administrative support issuesissues

66 44

Staff moraleStaff morale 44 55

Lack of understanding of Lack of understanding of PBSPBS

22 55

Too many initiatives come Too many initiatives come and goand go

33 22

Achievement issuesAchievement issues 22 22

District issuesDistrict issues 33 11

Community issuesCommunity issues 33 00

Influence of Negative StaffInfluence of Negative Staff 11 22

Administrative Support Issues

The Chicken, The Egg or Both?• In 6 schools – the administrator was a In 6 schools – the administrator was a

key barrier and contributing factorkey barrier and contributing factor• Inconsistent administrative support was Inconsistent administrative support was

a barrier for the team AND a barrier for the team AND set the set the stagestage for staff to resist implementation: for staff to resist implementation:– ““If my principal isn’t pushing this, why If my principal isn’t pushing this, why

should I do/believe in it?”should I do/believe in it?”• No clear messageNo clear message• No accountabilityNo accountability• No visible administrator effortNo visible administrator effort

Resolving Barriers

Resolving Barriers

• Slow Process of Change– Participants reported multi year efforts (3

or more) to transform attitude conditions

• Catalyst Events– In the case of administrative support,

typically this issue was only resolved once there was a change in administrators

– Changes in administrator often resulted in a within a year turn around in staff attitudes

How Barriers Were Resolved

Strategies UsedContextual Changes

How Barriers Were Resolved Contextual

Changes

• Staff turnover• Changes in administrative

support/participation• Change in Administrator• Disconnecting PBS from special

education


Strategies Used• Involve staff in decision making

– Surveys, discussions, proposal comments

• Keep staff informed about PBS/ Keep PBS on the radar screen– Updates at staff meetings, emails, memos

• Pay attention to staff morale– Celebration events– Rewards for staff– Unity building activities


Strategies Used• Train and coach the team

– Retraining, action plan development, have team attend conferences

• Have the administrator take a stand – “PBS is a must do” “PBS is right for our

building”– Holding staff accounting– Encouraging more administrative

participation in planning meetings


Strategies Used• Share data and showcase successes

– Graphs, testimonials, examples

• Provide training to educate on PBS and clarify misconceptions– New staff orientation, small and large group

in-services, individual coaching, model implementation

• Hold discussions to share ideas, problem solve, talk through issues– Informal small group forums


Strategies Used• Demonstrate how PBS can help with

high need students

• Use phrasing and terminology that staff can relate to and feel comfortable with– “It will make your job easier”– “You’ve already been doing this”– “It won’t require a lot of work/effort”– “It will help the kids”


Strategies Used

• Meeting with the administrator– External coach met with administrator– Internal coach or other key team

member met with administrator

• Involve the principal in special ways– E.g., special principal ticket

How Barriers Were How Barriers Were ResolvedResolved

Resiliency Factors?Resiliency Factors?

• District level supportDistrict level support• Credible team who didn’t give up – Credible team who didn’t give up –

dedicated people who kept PBS alive dedicated people who kept PBS alive long enough for other changes to long enough for other changes to happenhappen

• Desire among staff to do the right Desire among staff to do the right thing for childrenthing for children

Take Away Messages1. In general external and internal

coaches were on the same page about big picture issues (e.g., staff buy in) but were not always consistent in their explanation of the specific nature of the issues (e.g., reason for lack of buy in)

2. Pay attention to and do something about the larger context or atmosphere issues of the school (e.g., staff morale)

Take Away Messages3. Participants discussed many strategies for

changing staff attitudes but felt limited when the problem was the administrator

4. Transforming barriers is often a slow process that requires multi-year efforts and combinations of persistently applied strategies

5. Work to secure district level support and make that support visible

Take Away Messages

6. 6. Much of what was done focused on improving the impact of PBS at school (making implementation better) so that staff would have the experience of seeing students improve– According to participants once staff began

to REALIZE that PBS was having a positive effect with the students, increased cooperation and participation were observed

Visit www.njpbs.org for handouts. Click on

Upcoming Events and Scroll to the APBS listing

The Process of Change: Resolving Barriers to Universal Intervention Implementation Sharon Lohrmann Stacy Martin Sonia Patil.

Documents

day support

year slide

middle slide

progress slide

resolution slide

schools district coordinator

school team training

state coordinatordirector