swpbs & rti for all

SWPBS & RtI for All

George SugaiUniversity of Connecticut

OSEP Center on PBISSeptember 24, 2008

www.pbis.org www.cber.org

George.sugai@uconn.edu

PURPOSEProvide brief overview of School-wide Positive Behavior Support & Response-to-Intervention for EVERYONE in school

Organizer

What is SWPBS?

What is RtI?

What are outcomes?

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

What isSchool-wide Positive

Behavior Support (PBIS)?

SWPBS is for EVERYONE by….

SWPBS Conceptual Foundations

Behaviorism

ABA

PBS

SWPBS

Laws of Behavior

Applied Behavioral Technology

Social Validity

All Students

SYST

EMS

PRACTICES

DATASupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement

SupportingDecisionMaking

IntegratedElements

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

“Train & Hope”

REACT toProblemBehavior

REACT toProblemBehavior

Select &ADD

Practice

Select &ADD

Practice

Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice

Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice

WAIT forNew

Problem

WAIT forNew

Problem

Expect, But HOPE for

Implementation

Expect, But HOPE for

Implementation

Agreements

Team

Data-based Action Plan

ImplementationEvaluation

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION

PROCESS

Classroom

SWPBSPractices

Non-classroom Family

Student

School-w

ide

• Smallest #• Evidence-based• Biggest, durable effect

SCHOOL-WIDE1. 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

INTERVENTION

PRACTICES

CLASSROOM1.Classroom-wide positive expectations taught & encouraged

2.Teaching classroom routines & cues taught & encouraged

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

4.Active supervision

5.Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors

6.Frequent precorrections for chronic errors

7.Effective academic instruction & curriculum

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

~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• • • • • •

Where’d “triangle” come from….a

PBIS perspective?

“Triangle” ?’s

• Why triangle?

• Why not pyramid or octagon?

• Why not 12 tiers? 2 tiers?

• What’s it got to do w/ education?

• Where’d those %’s come from?

Public Health & Disease PreventionKutash et al., 2006; Larson, 1994

• Tertiary (FEW)– Reduce complications,

intensity, severity of current cases

• Secondary (SOME)– Reduce current cases of

problem behavior

• Primary (ALL)– Reduce new cases of

problem behavior

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

What is RtI?SWPBS detour

RtI

Response to Intervention

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

Quotable Fixsen • “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”

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

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

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?

• ???

Who does SWPBS look

like?

Few positive SW expectations defined, taught, & encouraged

Employee Entrance at TulsaDowntown Doubletree

SETTING

All Settings

Hallways Playgrounds CafeteriaLibrary/

Computer Lab

Assembly Bus

Respect Ourselves

Be on task.Give your best effort.

Be prepared.

Walk. Have a plan.

Eat all your food.Select healthy foods.

Study, read,

compute.

Sit in one spot.

Watch for your stop.

Respect Others

Be kind.Hands/feet

to self.Help/share

with others.

Use normal voice

volume.Walk to

right.

Play safe.Include others.Share

equipment.

Practice good table manners

Whisper.Return books.

Listen/watch.Use

appropriate applause.

Use a quiet voice.

Stay in your seat.

Respect Property

Recycle.Clean up after self.

Pick up litter.

Maintain physical space.

Use equipment properly.

Put litter in garbage can.

Replace trays &

utensils.Clean up

eating area.

Push in chairs.Treat books

carefully.

Pick up.Treat chairs appropriately

.

Wipe your feet.Sit

appropriately.

TEACHING MATRIX

Expectations & behavioral skills are taught & recognized in natural context

Exp

ecta

tions

Acknowledge & Recognize

Data & More Examples

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

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 doing SW-PBS well 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

Schools doing SW-PBS well report associated in increases reading achievement

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

Schools doing SW-PBS well report associated in increases reading achievement

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

July 2, 2008

ODR rates vary by level

July 2, 2008