PBIS Systems of Support – Focusing on Secondary

and Tertiary Tiers of Support

MontanaNovember 17, 2011

Ver. 1.0, Rev. 9.22.2011 This is a presentation of the IL PBIS Network. All rights

reserved.

ObjectivesParticipants will understand key features of all 3 tiers of PBIS continuum

of behavior support including:• Identify system features needed for Tier 2/3 • Utilize data to determine foci for group and individual intervention• Learn to apply a functional perspective to behavior and academic

challenges for group and individual intervention• Refine school/district action planning around current systems and

practices related to the continuum of RtI• Interpret primary and secondary data to determine student/family

in need of tertiary support• Understand need for comprehensive plans of support through the

wraparound process

Tools/Processes for Action Planning Today

• Multi-Tiered Action Plan (MAP)• Triangle Activity (data and interventions)

Where/how will Community Partners/Resources, including family voice, be integrated into the overall district and in school buildings?

Tools for Building District and Building Action Plans for Secondary/Tertiary Implementation

• Phases of Implementation (POI)• Secondary/Tertiary Tracking Tool• Systems Response Tool• Out-of-Home-School Tool• Guiding Questions Document• Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers (BAT)

Which Tools Will You Use Today to Develop your Action Plan?

Agenda 8:00 Registration

8:30 Big Ideas and Outcomes for Today

9:00 Setting the Context A Three-tiered System of Support Rationale for Three Tiered System of Support

10:00 Activity: Quick Assessment of Student Access to Tiers

10:15 Break

10:30 System Structures NeededTools: Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool, Systems Response Tool, BAT, Guiding

Questions, SIMEOUniversal Screening

11:45 Lunch

12:30 Secondary/Tertiary Examples: CICO/BEP & other Small Group Interventions Simple and Complex FBA/BIP Wraparound Team Process

1:30 Designing and Implementing Tier 2/3 Support Systems 2:00 Break 2:15 Review and synthesize Tier 2/3 Tools and Implementation Strategies

2:45 Application/Dissemination Activity

3:45 Adjourn

Some “Big Picture” Challenges

• Low intensity, low fidelity interventions for behavior/emotional needs

• Habitual use of restrictive settings (and poor outcomes) for youth with disabilities

• High rate of undiagnosed MH problems (stigma, lack of knowledge, etc.)

• Changing the routines of ineffective practices (systems) that are “familiar” to systems

Examples of Ineffective Secondary/Tertiary Structures

• Referrals to Sp. Ed. seen as the “intervention”

• FBA seen as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention

• Interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect (Ex: student sent for insight based counseling at

point of misbehavior)

Big Ideas for Administrators about Tier 2/Tier 3

• PBIS legislation, SEL standards, RtI• The link between academic and social success• ALL students get access to PBS; ALL students

should receive constant positive feedback• Administrators “need to know” the system, the

data/tools, and the practices well enough to guide/lead any “corrections” needed. Ex: If an individual behavior intervention plan is not

working, what should you look for or ask?

Administrators Need to…

• Have knowledge of behavior support for Tier 2/3.

• Know why a behavior plan may not be working and need to know how to “troubleshoot” a plan.

• Ensure that systems are in place and interventions are offered routinely and rapidly at all 3 tiers to allow ALL kids to be successful.

Setting the Context:

• A Three-tiered System of Support

Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

“PBIS” is a research-based systems approach designed to enhance the capacity of schools to…

(Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai et al., 1999; Sugai & Horner, 1994, 1999)

• Effectively educate all students, including students with challenging social behaviors

• Adopt & sustain the use of effective instructional practices

Core Features of a Response to Intervention (RtI) Approach

• Investment in prevention• Universal Screening• Early intervention for students not at “benchmark”• Multi-tiered, prevention-based intervention approach• Progress monitoring• Use of problem-solving process at all 3-tiers• Active use of data for decision-making at all 3-tiers• Research-based practices expected at all 3-tiers• Individualized interventions commensurate with

assessed level of need

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%

SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR

SUPPORT:

What is meant by “layering”

interventions?

Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions 1-5%•Individual students•Assessment-based•High intensity

1-5% Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions•Individual students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5-15%•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response•Small group interventions• Some individualizing

5-15% Tier 2/Secondary Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response•Small group interventions•Some individualizing

Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90%•All students•Preventive, proactive

80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

School-Wide Systems for Student Success: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/schoolwide.htm

SupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingDecisionMaking

SupportingStudent Behavior

PositiveBehaviorSupport

SYST

EMS

PRACTICES

DATA

OUTCOMES

Social Competence &Academic Achievement ٭

Adapted from “What is a systems Approach in school-wide PBS?”OSEP Technical Assistance on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://www.Pbis.org/schoolwide.htm

More Students Access Tier 2/3 Interventions When Tier 1/ Universal is in Place

7.94%

4.95%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Partially Implementing

(n=26)

Fully Implementing

(n=125)

% s

tud

en

ts

FY09 School Profile ToolStudents Accessing Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions

Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment

School-Wide Prevention Systems

SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, SD-T, EI-T

Check-in/ Check-out (CICO)

Group Intervention with Individualized Feature (e.g., Check and Connect -CnC and Mentoring)

Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)

Complex or Multiple-domain FBA/BIP

Wraparound

ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc.

Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals)

Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc.

Social/Academic Instructional Groups (SAIG)

Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model

Illinois PBIS Network, Revised October 2009Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

Tier 2/Secondary

Tier 3/Tertiary

Inte

rven

tio

nAssessm

en

t

Old Approach New Approach

Each school works out their own plan with MH agency

A MH counselor is housed in a school building 1 day a week to “see” students

No data to decide on or monitor interventions

“Hoping” that interventions are working

District has a plan for integrating MH at all buildings

CSCT and other MH staff participates in teams at all 3 tiers

CSCT and other MH staff leads small groups based on data

CSCT and other MH staff co-facilitates FBA/BIP or wrap individual teams for students

It Takes a System…

…..that builds system capacity for advanced tiers

3-Tiered System of Support

Necessary Conversations (Teams)

CICO

SAIG

Group w. individualfeature

Complex

FBA/BIP

Universal

Support

Problem Solving Team

Tertiary Systems Team

Brief

FBA/BIP

Brief FBA/BIP

Universal

Team

WRAP

Secondary Systems Team

Plans SW & Class-wide supports

Uses Process data; determines overall

intervention effectiveness

Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time

Uses Process data; determines overall

intervention effectiveness

Rev. 9.1.2009

Quick Assessment of Student Access to Intervention

• Total enrollment of your school?

• Number of students accessing CICO?

• Number of students on complex function-based or wraparound plans?

• Percent of total population of the school?

Moving Forward with Tier 2 and Tier 3

© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008

Problem• Innovative practices do not fare well in old

organizational structures and systems

• Organizational and system changes are essential to successful use of innovations

Expect it Plan for it

Stages of Implementation

• Exploration• Installation• Initial Implementation• Full Implementation• Innovation• Sustainability

Implementation occurs in stages:

Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005

2 – 4 Years

Advanced Organizer:

• Where is your school/district at with implementation of advanced Tiers?

Tertiary Level System ComponentsInstallation Stage

1. District Planning Team to address the system challenges and address the data trends to be changed.

2. Building level tertiary systems planning team to monitor progress of tertiary plans and address challenges at building level.

3. Tertiary Coaching (District level).4. Facilitators identified and “positioned” to facilitate Tier 3

teams and plans for 1-5% of students.5. Comprehensive training and technical assistance plan.6. Data system/tools to be integrated into tertiary practices.

Initial Implementation Stage:

• District Leadership Team meets at least quarterly

• District Tertiary Coach (.5 fte for start-up)• 3 or more buildings with at least monthly

Secondary Systems & Tertiary Systems Team mtgs.

• 3 or more buildings with 1-3 kids with 2 or more data points

Full Implementation Stage:

• District Leadership Team mtg. with a Tertiary focus at least quarterly

• District Tertiary Coaching (1.0 fte allocated)

• 6 or more buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs.

• 6 or more buildings with 3 or more kids with 2 or more data points

Innovation Stage:• District Leadership Team mtg. w. a Tertiary focus at

least quarterly w. community & family representation

• District Tertiary Coach (1 fte )• 9 or more buildings with at least monthly

Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs.

• 9 or more buildings with 1-3 % of kids with 2 or more data points

• Modified district policies/procedures• Specific strategies for blending related initiatives

Sustainability Stage:

• Representative District Leadership Team mtg. with integrated Tertiary focus regularly

• District Tertiary Coach/es 1 fte or more (fully funded)

• 80% of buildings with at least monthly Secondary Systems, Tertiary Systems & Problem Solving Team mtgs.

• 80% of buildings with 1-3 % of kids with 2 or more data points

• Modified district policies/procedures• Specific strategies for blending related initiatives

Commitments Needed at Tertiary Level• District Commitment to review data, ongoing planning, support tertiary

development at district and building levels

• Designated Buildings/District Staff positioned to facilitate tertiary teams for individual students (3-5%)

• External Tertiary Coach/Coordinator positioned

• Continuum of Skill Sets (training, guided learning, practice, coaching, consultation)

• Commitment to use of Data at System and Practice Levels: Going beyond ODRs (i.e. SSBD) Self assessment/fidelity (i.e. CISS, PoI) System monitoring (SR-T, Tier2/3 Tracking Tool, etc) SIMEO-Student Outcomes (complex FBA/BIP and wraparound)

District-wide Tertiary Implementation Process

• District meeting quarterly District outcomes Capacity/sustainability Other schools/staff

• Building meeting monthly Check on all levels Cross-planning with all levels Effectiveness of practices (FBA/Wrap)

• Tertiary Coaching Capacity• Facilitators for complex FBA/BIP and wraparound teams

Administrative SupportWhat Does it Look Like?

• The Administrator: Attends the team meetings Builds fluency (train with the team) Participates in adult practices Provides channels of communication Provides financial support Acknowledges the “doers” Deals with accountability issues

Components of Tier 2/3 Model

• Differentiated Teaming Structures Across all 3 Tiers Assigned roles for Coordination/Facilitation

• A Full Continuum of Interventions Scaling up and down the continuum

• Universal Screening Beyond ODRs

• Ongoing Use of More Specified Data Tools for Monitoring Systems and Outcomes

Replication of Tertiary Demos Moving Rapidly

Phases of Implementation: Secondary Phase I (n=8 Replication Schools)

Administrators Role: Dealing With the Tough Issues

• Adult response to problem behavior. Adults need to model being respectful in their

communications with students around behavior.

non-examples that need correcting?• School personnel should not get to choose

NOT to give students evidenced based interventions.

Student “Need” or System “Need”?• There is a high use of restrictive settings for students with

EBD; and the outcomes for these students are not good.

• There is no self-contained classroom nor one-to-one aide for students with EBD in life/society after high school; just jail.

• Students removed from general education due to emotional/behavioral factors, are more likely to go to jail than to have good “life” outcomes.

References:

Bradley, Henderson, Monfore (2004) Bullock and McArthur (1994), Rutherford and Nelson (2005), Rutherford, Nelson and Woford (1985), Grosenick, George, George, Lewis (1991), Greenbaum, Dedrick, Freidman, Kutash, Brown, Lardieri (1996), Mathur (2007), Quinn (2004)

Moore, Soloman, “Mentally IL Offenders Stretch the Limits of Juvenile Justice”,New York Times, August 10, 2009 page 1

Student Successfully Transitions out of Special Education Placement

0

20

40

60

80

100

9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8

% o

f G

oa

l Ac

hie

ved

%of Daily Total CICO Points

Kendall’s Daily Point Data for Behavioral Goals

Did Kendall “Need” a Restrictive Placement?

Or Effective Interventions?

Tier 2/3…..Changing Existing Systems

• Harder than starting from scratch• Schools think they are “already

doing it”… Need to “deconstruct” some existing

teaming approaches and practices Data not being used except to justify

placements

Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases Simple Secondary Interventions

36

551

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Aug to Nov 2006 Aug to Nov 2007

num

be

r of st

ud

ents

2-5 ODRs 6+ ODRs CICO*

*CICO = Check in, Check Out

Tertiary Demos

3-Tiered System of Support

Necessary Conversations (Teams)

CICO

SAIG

Group w. individualfeature

Complex

FBA/BIP

Universal

Support

Problem Solving Team

Tertiary Systems Team

Brief

FBA/BIP

Brief FBA/BIP

Universal

Team

WRAP

Secondary Systems Team

Plans SW & Class-wide supports

Uses Process data; determines overall

intervention effectiveness

Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time

Uses Process data; determines overall

intervention effectiveness

Rev. 9.1.2009

Continuum of Teaming:Systems & Student-Specific

• Secondary Systems Planning Team• Secondary (Generic) Problem Solving Team• Tertiary Systems Planning Team• Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team• Wraparound Team• District Tertiary Leadership Team

Tools Used to Build District and Building Level Action Plans for Secondary/Tertiary Implementation

• Phases of Implementation (PoI) • Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (formerly known as

Checklist for Individual Student Systems-CISS)• Secondary/Tertiary Tracking Tool• Systems Response Tool• Out-of-Home-School Tool• Guiding Questions Tool

Progress Monitoring Secondary/Tertiary Interventions

Teams need to track and monitor interventions by category:

1. How many students are receiving each intervention?2. How many students are responding to each intervention?3. What data is used to monitor each intervention type?

Tier 2/Tier 3 (Secondary/Tertiary) Tracking Tool

Annual ISSET Results

ISSET Trends 4-Year Implementers

Since 2007-08, Tier 2 fidelity

increased over 400%!

Comparison: Elementary School A FY 2009 CISS Data and IS-SET Data

FY 2009 IS-SET Data Comparison: Elementary School A - District

88%

38%47%

58%

93%

77%

51%

74%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Foundations Targeted Intensive Total

School A District Average

100%50%

13.5

5.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2008-09 2009-10

% o

f Tie

r 2

Featu

res

in P

lace

0

5

10

15

Tota

l OSS

per 10

0

Students

CISS-Tier 2 OSS/100 Students

Glenwood Elementary School WaukeganStudent Suspensions and Tier 2 Fidelity Data

0.11

0.160.17

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

% o

f Fea

ture

s

in P

lace

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

OD

Rs/1

00/D

ay

ISSET-Tier 2 CISS-Tier 2 ODRs/100/Day

Clearview Elementary Fidelity and Discipline Data Over 3 Years

76

66

82

69

79

72

83 87

72

0

20

40

60

80

100

Foundations Targeted Interventions Intensive IndividualizedInterventions

CISS Scores

ISS

ET

Sco

re

FY 08 FY 09 FY 10

FY08-FY10 PBIS Tier 2/3 Implementation Fidelity in ASD

Alton CUSD 11 Educational Environment Data Trends FY06-FY10

System Tools Track Decreases in Special Education Placement

13

64

15

5

911

2

0

5

10

15

20

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

# o

f St

ud

ents

Referred for Special Ed Testing

Placed in Special Ed

Lovejoy Elementary School Special EducationReferral/Placement by School Year

N=158

High Risk

No Risk

Minimal Risk

Moderate Risk

FY 2010-Tier 3 SIMEO Study Risk of Home, School and Community Placement

High Risk Behavior Change of Students Receiving Tier 3 Interventions

FY 2010-Tier 3 SIMEO Study Classroom Behavior Functioning and Academic Performance

N=158

Always

Never

Sometimes

Frequently

90-100%

70-79%

60-69%

0-59%

Classroom Behavior Academic Performance

© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008

Problem• Students cannot benefit from

interventions they do not experience

“Finding” Students in Need of Tertiary Supports

• Systems Response Tool

Universal Screening• Looking Beyond ODRs

Why Do We Need to Go Beyond Use of ODRs?

• Use of “alternative” discipline responses; often w/o documentation.

• Over use of “Special Education” placement w/o adequate dosage of interventions.

Why Do We Need to Go Beyond Use of ODRs? (Continued)

• High rate of unidentified MH problems.

• Youth get identified only after “crisis” which makes it harder and more “costly” to intervene.

The Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) (Walker and Severson, 1992)

• Developed as a school-wide (Universal) screening tool for children in grades 1-6

Similar to annual vision/hearing screenings

Background• Identifies behaviors that may impede academic

and social functioning

• Leads to earlier intervention

• May reduce need for formalized, lengthy “requests for assistance” by using data to identify youth

Implementation Process Summary:Multiple Gating Procedure

(Adapted from Severson et al. 2007)

Teachers Rank Order then Select Top 3 Students

on Each Dimension (Externalizing &

Internalizing)

Teachers Rate Top 3 Students in Each Dimension (Externalizing & Internalizing)Using a Research-Validated

Tool (e.g., SSBD, BASC-2/BESS, SDQ)

Gate 1

Gate 2

Pass Gate 1

Pass Gate 2Tier 2

Intervention

Universal Screening: Suggested Features

• Obtain district and building level buy-in for universal screening (e.g., build case for links between student mental health and academic performance)

• Build, or strengthen Tier 2 systems and practices (use self-assessment tools, e.g. BAT to monitor progress)

• Inform parents/guardians of upcoming screening process• Use teacher nomination process to initially identify

students demonstrating internalizing/externalizing behaviors

• Incorporate a validated screener that can reliably identify a broad range of externalizing and internalizing behaviors

• Obtain consent for students meeting screening criteria• Monitor student response to intervention regularly and

use data to determine next steps

Universal Screening for Behavior Results

Practices/Interventions

Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment

School-Wide Prevention Systems

SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, SD-T, EI-T

Check-in/ Check-out (CICO)

Group Intervention with Individualized Feature (e.g., Check and Connect -CnC and Mentoring)

Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)

Complex or Multiple-domain FBA/BIP

Wraparound

ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc.

Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals)

Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc.

Social/Academic Instructional Groups (SAIG)

Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model

Illinois PBIS Network, Revised October 2009Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

Tier 2/Secondary

Tier 3/Tertiary

Inte

rven

tio

nAssessm

en

t

Critical Features of Secondary/Tier 2 Group Interventions

• Intervention is continuously available• Rapid access to intervention (72 hr.)• Very low effort by teachers• Consistent with school-wide expectations• All staff/faculty in school are involved/have access• Flexible intervention based on descriptive

functional assessment• Adequate resources (admin., team)• Continuous monitoring for decision-making

Why Do Secondary/Tier 2 Group Interventions Work?

• Improved structure• Prompts throughout the day for correct behavior• System for linking student with at least one adult• Student chooses to participate

• Increased feedback• Feedback occurs more often• Feedback is tied to student behavior• Inappropriate behavior is less likely to be ignored or

rewarded

Why do Secondary/Tier 2 Group Interventions Work? (Continued)

• Increased frequency of acknowledgment/ reinforcement for appropriate behavior

• Adult and peer attention

• Linking school and home support

• Organized to morph into a self-management system

BEP Cycle

Weekly BEP Meeting

9 Week Graph Sent

Program Update

EXIT

BEP Plan

Morning Check-In

Afternoon Check-In

Home Check-In

Daily Teacher Evaluation

Data-Collection for Decision-Making

Regular use of data by BEP team

• Monitor BEP points earned each day• Academic achievement • Office Discipline Referrals• Other outcome data

Parkwood Elementary School (U-46)

• 72% (18/25) students averaged daily points at or above 80%

• 28% (7/25) students averaged below 80%• Out of 20 referrals during the four weeks, 11

were received by CICO students• 60% (17) students have not received a referral

since CICO

Other Types of Group Interventions

• Newcomers Club• Homework Study Groups• Lunch Bunch• Bus Riders School• Anger Management Group• Grief Group• Others from today’s audience

Administrators Role is to Ensure That…

• No intervention is administered w/o progress monitoring.

• The Special Education focus changes from “did we deliver the intervention?” to “did the student experience success/ get better?”

• We stop routinely writing minutes on the IEP.

• Ensure that “research based interventions ”always used; – don’t get to choose not to deliver interventions.

• Evidence-based practices need to be throughout a school – support structures at all 3 tiers.

• Take the “secrets” of behavior practices out of the basement and embed them across whole school.

• Equip teachers to be confident to handle.

Functional Assessment of Behavior“BIG IDEAS”

• Functional assessment is a problem solving process – a way to think about behavior systematically.

“FA can be done in your head.”

• Functional assessment identifies the events that reliably predict and maintain problem behavior.

Do All Staff Understand the Context for PBIS?

• Behavior support is the redesign of environments, not the redesign of individuals.

• Positive behavior support plans define changes in the behavior of those who will implement the plan. A behavior support plan describes what we will do differently.

Identifying Who Needs an FBA/BIP

• Academic/behavior data indicates challenge• High intensity or frequency of behavior• Behavior impedes academic performance• Don’t understand behavior• Behavior seems to meet need or be reinforcing

for student• Interventions have not been successful• Use data

FBA Team Process Steps

1. Collect informationa) What does the problem look like?b) What series of events predicts behavior?c) What is the maintaining consequence of the

observable behavior?d) Hypothesis statement?

2. Develop “competing pathways” and replacement behaviors

3. Develop BIP.4. Develop strategies for monitoring & evaluating

implementation of BSP.

The person who is supposed to implement the strategy needs to be actively involved in designing it; or it probably won’t work!

Ownership & Voice: A Key to Intervention Design

Interventions…

Problem Solving Steps

Step 1: Problem Identification

Step 2: Problem Analysis

Step 3: Intervention Design

Step 4: Response to Intervention

Why is it occurring?

What’s the problem?

What are we going to do about it?

Is it working?

Setting Event Strategies

Antecedent Strategies

Teaching/ Instructional

Strategies

Consequence Strategies

Competing Behavior PathwayBehavior Intervention Plan

Neutralize/eliminate

settingevents

Add relevant & remove irrelevanttriggers

Teach alternative

that is moreefficient

Add effective & & removeineffectivereinforcers

Behavioral PathwaySetting Event

Days with Gym

Antecedent

Less structured activities that involve competition

Problem Behavior

Negative comments about activity and to peers leading to physical contact

Consequence

Sent out of P.E. class

Function

To escape setting

Brief Function-based Interventions

Setting Event Strategies•Add check-in before gym

Teaching Strategies•Teach social skills (getting along with others, friendship, problem solving, sportsmanship) •Teach how to approach gym teacher to ask for a drink of water to leave setting. •Teach student how to re-enter and continue with activity

Consequence Strategies Acknowledging/rewarding student when uses new skills (asking for a drink of water to leave, using respectful language with peers, being a good sport, etc..)

Antecedent Strategies•Behavior Lessons for all students about using respectful language with self and others and how to be a good sport •. More frequent activities with less focus on competition (parachute, 4-square, etc...)

•Pre-correct

Common Mistakes Seen in Behavior Intervention Plans

• Becoming ‘immobilized’ by setting events beyond the control of the school, ex. student does not take medication at home, what is the setting event at school? What is something the school can identify and impact?

• Skipping the replacement behavior : Must have a alternative or replacement behavior that student is taught, practiced, reinforced

• Not enough teaching strategies and opportunities

• Putting all the “eggs in one ‘consequence’ basket”, ex. If you’re good all week, you can have a soda on Friday

Other Common Mistakes…• The problem behavior is not operationally defined:

observable, countable, measurable: must be able to see, count, and measure behavior. Aggressive versus hits other peers during unstructured time on a daily basis

• There is more than one function: non example, obtain peer attention and avoid doing work

• There need to be at least one strategy in at least 3 areas (Antecedent, Behavior, and Consequence)

Common Mistakes on the BIP

Need to make sure there is:

•A strategy for preventing problem behavior•A strategy for minimizing reinforcement of problem behavior•A strategy for reinforcing the use of desired/alternative behavior

Individualized Teams at the Tertiary Level

• Are unique to the individual child & family Blend the family’s supports with the

school representatives who know the child best

• Meeting Process Meet frequently Regularly develop & review

interventions• Facilitator Role

Role of bringing team together Role of blending perspectives

Individualized Comprehensive Teams/Plans

• What? The development of a very unique,

individualized, strength-based team & plan with the youth family that is designed to improve quality of life as defined by the youth/family.

• Who? Youth with multiple needs across home, school,

community Youth with multiple life domain needs The adults in youth’s life are not effectively

engaged in comprehensive planning (i.e. adults not getting along very well)

Individualized, Comprehensive Teams/Plans

What Do Tertiary Plans include?Supports and interventions across multiple life domains and settings (i.e. behavior support plans, academic interventions, basic living supports, multi-agency strategies, family supports, community supports, etc.)

What’s Different?Natural supports and unique strengths are emphasized in team and plan development. Youth/family access, voice, ownership are critical features. Plans include supports for adults/family, as well as youth.

What is Wraparound?

• Wraparound is a tool (e.g. a process) used to implement interagency systems of care in achieving better outcomes for youth and their families.

• The wraparound process is similar to person-centered planning, the individualized Positive Behavior Support (PBS) planning process.

What is Wraparound?

• Wraparound is a process for developing family-centered teams and plans that are strength and needs based. (Not deficit based) Across multiple settings and life domains.

• Wraparound plans include natural supports, are culturally relevant, practical and realistic.

Implementing Wraparound:Key Elements Needed for Success

• Engaging students, families & teachers• Team development & team ownership• Ensuring student/family/teacher voice

Getting to real (big) needs

• Effective interventions Serious use of strengths Natural supports Focus on needs vs. services

• Monitoring progress & sustaining• System support buy-in

What’s New in Wraparound?

• Skill set specificity• Focus on intervention design/effectiveness• Integration with school-wide PBS• Phases to guide implementation/supervision• Data-based decision-making• Integrity/fidelity assessment (WIT)• Tools to guide teams:

Home School Community Education Information Tool

Wraparound Skill Sets

1. Identifying “big” needs (quality of life indicators)

“Student needs to feel others respect him”

2. Establish voice/ownership 3. Reframe blame4. Recognize/prevent teams’ becoming

immobilized by “setting events”5. Getting to interventions that actually work6. Integrate data-based decision-making into

complex process (home-school-community)

Four Phases of Wraparound Implementation

I. Team Preparation- Get people ready to be a team- Complete strengths/needs chats (baseline data)

II. Initial Plan Development- Hold initial planning meetings (integrate data)- Develop a team “culture” (use data to establish voice)

III. Plan Implementation & Refinement- Hold team meetings to review plans (ongoing data

collection and use)- Modify, adapt & adjust team plan (based on data)

IV. Plan Completion & Transition- Define good enough (Data-based decision-making)- “Unwrap”

The Beginning…

• “Ben” started CICO in September of 2009. He was automatically entered into the intervention when he met the building criteria of having two, level two office discipline referrals.

• Behaviors of concern included: disobeying directions, talking out, disrupting others learning, off task, hitting other students, arguing with teacher and students, name calling, cursing to peers and adults.

• He averaged a 78% after 6 weeks.

And Then…

• A reverse request was given to the teacher where she was asked to identify the next secondary intervention (continued CICO, SAIG, CICO with individual features or mentoring).

• The teacher chose for “Ben” to receive a mentor.

• His mentor was chosen from the community partnership Graham elementary holds with a local church.

Moving Forward

• In December, “Ben” began asking his mother if he could be admitted to the hospital so he “could get better”. He was experiencing anger, thoughts of hurting himself and he was physically aggressive with classmates and peers. He was verbalizing “he couldn’t control himself.”

• “Ben” had three prior psychiatric hospitalizations (before coming to Graham Elementary).

And Then…• One of our criteria from the guiding questions is

for the secondary systems team to consider wrap around for a student who is at risk for change of placement.

• The secondary systems met and decided to contact mom re: starting a wrap around.

• “Ben” was at risk for an out of home placement due to behaviors at home (physical aggression with siblings and mom). He was also chosen due to continued office discipline referrals (30 for the year), out of school suspensions (3), and a CICO average of 76%.

Challenges the “Ben” and Family Were Facing Included…

• Single parent family; mom working evenings and overnights.

• No contact with biological father and no consistent male role models.

• ADHD diagnoses; inconsistent use of prescribed medication.

• Limited involvement in community & neighborhood

• Limited social relationships at school & home• Stress of moving to different homes.

Child and Family Strengths

• Ben’s Strengths identified in the first meeting included: “Ben”: Smart, good at math, reading, writing and playing video

games Mom: Very organized He’s creative and enjoys drawing cartoons Teacher: writing and math;

• Family Strengths: Mom consistently takes “Ben” to his mental health

appointments. This might include getting the city bus for an hour ride,

attending an hour appointment, waiting another 30 minutes for the bus and then riding home and then bringing him to school.

Mom is an active participant at the school, follows through with suggestions

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission statement was developed by the team, “Ben” and his mom. “Ben” wanted the mission statement to be that “he would yell less at home so that he would see more smiling from his family”.

First Child & Family Meeting:

• Initial steps as a result of the first child & family team meeting: Continued CICO Continued mentoring Continued MH services Continue communication with Mental Health

FBA to be completed by Abbey Family YMCA (schedule present at LANS for

funding)

Child & Family Team Meeting Number 2

January 22 - Abbey, Sara, teacher, “Ben”:

•Discussed improved behavior at home and school (not in physical fights at school, turning in his work, helping at home)•Completed BIP using the FBA (help from the baseline SIMEO data)•Planned next meeting and “Ben” wanted to invite mentor to the next meeting

Behavior Pathway Completed at 2nd Child & Family Team Meeting

Behavior Intervention Plan

3rd Child & Family Team MeetingMarch 5, 2010:•Reviewed strengths~celebrating that he walked away from two fights at school (he had never done that before)• Team looked at Simeo Graphs and “Ben” led the discussion and interpreted the improvements for the group•Needs in Ben’s words were that he “still had room to improve”. “Ben” pointed to areas on the Simeo graphs where he said he still needed to work on.•Mom was going to bring electric bill so Abbey could continue to get YMCA family membership to address the need based on the SIMEO data (things to do, social activities)

Next Meeting Scheduled for April 23rd

Upon returning from spring break (three weeks-this is a year round school) mom was in the school office and reported she was evicted and needed to begin staying with extended family. Abbey and the parent educator are working to obtain transportation. The parent educator (homeless liaison) is working with the family to obtain stable housing.

Other Data…

Summarizing…

Ensuring Capacity at All 3 Tiers

• Begin assessment and development of secondary and tertiary tiers at start-up of universal Assess resources and current practices (specialized

services) Review current outcomes of students with higher level

needs Position personnel to guide changes in practice Begin planning and training with select personnel

• All 3 tiers addressed at all district meetings and at every training

Tertiary Level “Coaches” Have to Help Establish Capacity (Fidelity) for Wraparound:

• Commitment of time• Commitment to “stay at table”• Willingness to regroup and be solution-focused

• No judging or blaming• Time for listening to stories• Time for venting, validating

• Establishing consensus• Voice of student/family in prioritizing • Establishing ownership

On-going Self–Assessment of Secondary/Tertiary Implementation

• Building Level: IL Phases of Implementation (PoI) Tool IL Secondary/Tertiary Intervention Tracking Tool Sp. Ed Referral Data Suspensions/Expulsions/Placements (ongoing) Aggregate Individual Student Data (IL SIMEO data) LRE Data trends Subgroup data (academic, discipline, Sp. Ed. Referral, LRE, etc)

• District Level: Referral to Sp. Ed. Data LRE Data (aggregate and by building) IL Out-of-Home-School-Tracking Tool (multiple sorts) Aggregate SIMEO data Aggregate PoI Data

Administrators Need to…

• Know what the practices look like when implemented with fidelity;

• Be aware of data on the tracking tool and the SR-T; help decide what needs to change;

• Be active/visible on teams;• Be “hands on” with the first few tertiary plans;• Apply high-level problem-solving skills

troubleshooting systems level issues.

What Are Your Next Steps?

• Review the tools• Review the blank triangle• Develop your Multi-tiered Action Plan

(MAP)

Applying What You Have Learned Today:

Follow-up/Next Steps outlined in “Application/Dissemination of Learning” component.

Integrated Community Resources?