using a multi-tiered framework to build effective ... · lucille eber, ed.d.,statewide director,...
TRANSCRIPT
Lucille Eber, Ed.D.,Statewide Director, Illinois PBIS Network
Partner, National PBIS TA Center
www.pbisillinois.org
www.pbis.org
Seventh Annual APEX
Summer Leadership Institute
Keynote Session
August 15, 2012
Using a Multi-tiered Framework to
Build Effective Partnerships among
Schools, Youth, Families, and
Communities
Special Education
General Education
Sea of Ineligibility
Need for Change?
Bridging the Gap
General +
Intensive
Resources
General Resources
Intensity of Problem
Am
ount
of
Res
ourc
es
Nee
ded
to S
olv
e P
roble
m
General +
Supplemental
Resources
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
Acknowledgements: Tier 2/3 Model Demo Development
• Kimberli Breen
• Michele Capio
• Ami Flamini
• Kelly Hyde
• Amy Lee
• Diane McDonald
• Sheri Leucking
• Jen Rose
• Jennifer Swain-Bradway
• IL Demo Districts/Coaches
How Secondary Schools
Are Different
• Size
• Expectations of staff
• Staff is departmentalized
• More groundwork is needed
• Teams can become layered
• Implementation comes more slowly
It Takes a System…
A System in the school to support a
continuum of supports and interventions.
District Level Structures are also critical.
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
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
80% of Students
15%
5%
SCHOOL-WIDE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
INTERVENTIONS and
SUPPORT
More Students Access Tier 2/3 Interventions
When Tier 1/ Universal is in Place reported by Illinois schools implementing PBIS
7.94%
4.95%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Partially Implementing
(n=26)
Fully Implementing
(n=125)
% s
tud
en
ts
FY09 IL School Profile Tool Students Accessing Tier 2/Tier 3 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
© 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
Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Check-in/
Check-out
Individualized Check-
In/Check-Out, Groups &
Mentoring (ex. CnC)
Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/
Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)
Complex 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
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Aug.,2009 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Tier 2/
Secondary
Tier 3/
Tertiary
3-Tiered System of Support
Necessary Conversations (Teams)
CICO
SAIG
Group w.
individual
feature
Complex
FBA/BI
P
Universal
Support
Problem
Solving Team
Tertiary
Systems
Team
Brief
FBA/
BIP
Brief
FBA/BI
P
Univers
al
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
Failed Interventions
are not Neutral
• They leave a residual effect…
• Think about Tier 2 interventions in your
school(s) with regards to the following
critical features:
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
Check-in-Check-out (CICO)
• Merely an extension of Tier 1
• Some get high frequency scheduled positive
contact with adults
• Youth solicit the positive contact/feedback
• Low effort for teacher if built on Tier 1
• Need to have 7-12% accessing if it is to come
to be a routine in your school(s)
• If you only have 1-2% on CICO, those are
likely to be kids who need more….
Why do you want 7-12% on CICO?
1. Youth who here-to-for would have gotten nothing (‘til they ‘got worse”)
now get a positive boost of support (sea of ineligibility)
2. All teachers will expect that every day they will have kids cross their
threshold who need higher rate of positive contact
3. Quicker/easier to support kids who need Tier 3
3. Structure to build transference and generalizing from Social Skills
instructional groups and function-based behavior plans
Reduced Suspensions for
Students with IEPs Renewed focus on consistent Tier 1 and Tier 2
implementation shows promising results.
• A 39% decrease in OSS events for general education students, and a 59% decrease for students with IEPs.
• A 37% decrease in the number of OSS days for general education students and a 58% decrease for students with IEPs.
• Principal attributes success to maintaining fidelity at the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels, holding regular team meetings, and increasing staff commitment.
Study on ODR Rates for IL
Students with IEPs (in process T. Tobin UP May 2012)
All Students with ODRs ODR Students with IEPs
Year 1
2009-2010
Average = 277 (SD = 210)
Total = 12,745
Average = 84 (SD = 169)
Total = 3,852
Year 2
2010-2011
Average = 228 (SD = 161)
Total = 10,503
Average = 75 (SD = 140)
Total = 3,454
The results indicate that the 46 schools decreased
the ODR rates for all students as well as
decreased ODRs for students with IEPs
Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups:
Key Points Resulting from ‘Innovation’
• Selection into groups based on youths’ reaction to life circumstance not existence of life circumstances – ex. fighting with peers, not family divorce
• Goals for improvement common across youth in same group – (ex. use your words)
• Data used to measure if skills are being USED in natural settings (vs. in counseling sessions)
– transference of skills to classroom, café etc.)
• Stakeholders (teachers, family etc.) have input into success of intervention – (ex. Daily Progress Report)
Behavioral Pathway
Setting
Event
Days
with
Gym
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
© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
Problem
• Students cannot benefit from
interventions they do not
experience
The System Features Needed to Support
he Effective Practices…
• A Team unique to each individual child &
family
– Blend the family/natural supports with the school
representatives who know the child best
• A defined Meeting Process
– Meet frequently and use data
– Develop, implement, review range of interventions
• Facilitator Role
– Bringing team together
– Blending perspectives; guiding consensus
– Systematic use of data (strengths and needs)
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.
Who is Tier 3-Wraparound for?
• Youth with multiple needs across home,
school, community
• Youth at-risk for change of placement
(youth not responding to current
systems/practices)
• The adults in youth’s life are not effectively
engaged in comprehensive planning (i.e.
adults not getting along very well)
Four Phases of Wraparound
Implementation I. Team Development
- 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”
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
• individual students
• built upon strengths
• voice, priorities of youth and family
• based on unique youth and family needs
• culturally relevant teams and plans
• plans include natural supports
• traditional and non-traditional interventions
• multiple life domains
• unconditional
Features of Wraparound:
Wraparound Skill Sets
1. Identifying “big” needs (quality of life indicators)
• “Student needs to feel others respect him”
2. Establish voice/ownership
3. Reframe blame
4. Recognize/prevent teams’ becoming
immobilized by “setting events”
5. Getting to interventions that actually work
6. Integrate data-based decision-making into
complex process (home-school-
community)
Can wraparound teams use data-based
decision-making to prioritize needs,
design strategies, & monitor progress of
the child/family team?
Data-Based Decision-Making
and Wraparound
more efficient teams, meetings, and plans?
less reactive (emotion-based) actions?
more strategic actions?
more effective outcomes?
longer-term commitment to maintain success?
Alton Middle School ODR Reduction for Students in Tier 3 Supports
(n=17 students)
2.37
4
3.25
0.320.60.7
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Baseline Time 2 Time 3
Me
an
Nu
mb
er
of
Ep
isd
oe
s p
er
Stu
de
nt
ODR OSS N=200
FY 201I-Tier III Study
School Risk Behaviors: Aggregate Change
Alton CUSD 11 Decreases Reliance on Self Contained Special Education Placements
Alton Middle School, Alton CUSD 11, SPP Data Demonstrates Access to General Education
Settings for Students with IEPs
Replication District CUSD 300 Starts to Turn Curve of SPP Indicators in Desired Direction
Rehabilitation,
Empowerment, Natural
Supports, Education
and Work {RENEW} J. Malloy and colleagues at UNH
• Developed in 1996 as the model for a 3-year RSA-
funded employment model demonstration project for
youth with “SED”
• Focus is on community-based, self-determined services
and supports
• Promising results for youth who typically have very poor
post-school outcomes (Bullis & Cheney; Eber, Nelson & Miles,
1997; Cheney, Malloy & Hagner, 1998)
RENEW Overview RENEW (Rehabilitation, Empowerment, Natural
Supports, Education and Work) is an application
of wraparound
• Reflects key principles: person-centered,
community and strengths-based, natural
supports
• Focused on student, versus parent
engagement (e.g., student-centered teams,
student-developed interests)
RENEW Supports HS Youth
Transitioning Back from Alternative
School
• “Mark” an 18 year old junior with a Specific Learning Disability:
• Expelled in April 2011 for possession, use, and intent to sell an illegal substance.
• History of truancy and 16 past ODRs.
• Sent to an alternative school from Apr. 2011-Dec. 2011.
• In December began RENEW process, and in January transitioned back to his community high school.
• Supported by a Check-in Check-out intervention that included his probation officer.
• Connected with each teacher after class and
• Social worker at the beginning and end of each day.
RENEW Supports HS Youth
Transitioning Back from Alternative
School
• Mark’s RENEW plan includes
• Identifying credit needs to graduate on time
• Obtaining a driver’s license
• Developing organizational techniques
• Setting up a savings account
• Enrolling in summer school
• Working evenings and weekends at family business
• Mark passed all Q3 classes, only one ODR for being tardy, and no suspensions.
Ongoing Coaching is needed to establish
capacity (fidelity) for wraparound:
• Fluency with practices and data
• Competency-based coaching and TA
• Ongoing ‘practice refinement’
• Stay at the table…staythe course
Interconnected Systems
Framework paper (Barrett, Eber and Weist , revised 2009)
Developed through a collaboration of the National SMH and National PBIS Centers
www.pbis.org
Contributions from Colette Lueck, the IL Children’s Mental Health Partnership And Lisa Betz, The IL Department of Human Services, Division of Mental health
Why We Need MH Partnerships
• One in 5 youth have a MH “condition”
• About 70% of those get no treatment
• School is “defacto” MH provider
• JJ system is next level of system default
• 1-2% identified by schools as EBD
• Those identified have poor outcomes
• Suicide is 4th leading cause of death among
young adults
Old Approach New Approach
• Each school works out their
own plan with Mental Health
(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; but not sure.
• District has a plan for integrating
MH at all buildings (based on
community data as well as
school data);
• MH person participates in teams
at all 3 tiers;
• MH person leads group or
individual interventions based on
data;
• For example, MH person leads or
co-facilitates small groups,
FBA/BIPs or wrap teams for
students.
Structure for Developing an ISF:
Community Partners Roles in Teams
• A District/Community leadership that includes families,
develops, supports and monitors a plan that includes:
• Community partners participate in all three levels of
systems teaming: Universal, Secondary, and Tertiary
• Team of SFC partners review data and design
interventions that are evidence-based and can be
progress monitored
• MH providers form both school and community develop,
facilitate, coordinate and monitor all interventions
through one structure
Community Partners
Roles in Teams
• Participate in all three levels of systems
teaming: Universal, Secondary, and
Tertiary
• Facilitate or co-facilitate tertiary teams
around individual students
• Facilitate or co-facilitate small groups with
youth who have been identified in need of
additional supports
Examples of
Lessons Learned with High
Schools (and Middle schools)
Define At-Risk
Staff/Community
Simple Data
SAIG, Universal Behavior Lesson Plans & the Matrix
Definition of At-Risk
• Make sure at-risk is clearly defined
• Think about building and community data
points which might support the definition
If tier 2 isn’t working, always look to see if
you are putting students into lower level
interventions who are really in need of higher
level interventions.
STAFF
• Educate your staff re: the use of positive, corrective feedback – Don’t assume people know how to give feedback
– Have people practice giving feedback (in a staff meeting, during training)
– Give people the words to use when giving feedback
• Provide staff feedback & acknowledgements regarding their feedback
• Pay attention to staff resistance and address it as it occurs
• Identify community that could participate and support interventions.
Corrective Feedback
NOT Corrective
• You broke the rules again.
• You were late just like yesterday.
• You are in high school, I shouldn’t have to remind you to bring your book.
• Why do you always have to shout out?
CORRECTIVE
• You did not have your book today. Please remember to bring it tomorrow.
• You were late for class today. Please be in your seat before the bell rings.
• You shouted out while I was showing the problem on the board. Please raise your hand and I will call on you.
Connect this language to the matrix
Illinois College &
Jacksonville High School
Partnership
Illinois College Students earned course credit for hours logged
in the high school. They were able to gain hands-on and real
life experiences while assisting with secondary interventions at
JHS.
• Assisted with AM Check In and PM Check Out
• Collected and organized SWIS data for the Secondary
Systems
• Co-facilitated S/AIG Groups
• Assisted with communication between staff, students and
families regarding secondary interventions.
Data needs to be simple!
• Are the data points for entry simple?
*When collecting data it should be for ALL or SOME
kids. At the beginning of tier 2, you don’t need to
look up individual kid data.
• Are the data points in line with “at-risk”?
• Track Data and determine if 70% are
responding. If not, look at systems first.
• Is the DPR ready and is it Tied to universal?
Progress Monitoring:
Evaluating the Program: 2010-
2011
CICO
Daily
Progress
Report
SAIG Keep an eye out for the “we must have a curriculum syndrome”!
The cause of this syndrome could
be schools are NOT teaching
Universal lessons based upon their
data.
Since they aren’t teaching
behavior on a regular basis, they
don’t have lesson plans to use for
SAIG.
This equals the search for
curriculum and the avoidance of
teaching behavior universally.
Using universal behavior lesson
plans
• Going to help you keep Tier 2 connected to Tier one.
• Going to make you re-visit your matrix and remind you of the need for it to be fluid.
• Is your matrix addressing only problem behaviors or is it also addressing pro-social behaviors?
– Procedure vs. Skill
Procedure & Pro-social Skill blending them on the matrix makes all of this more “high school friendly”
Procedures
• Throw paper in the waste
can
• Use the right side of the
stairway
• Bring all materials to
class
• Keep Hands, Feet, and
Other Objects to yourself
Pro-Social Skills
• Contribute in class; raise
hand to volunteer answer
• Encourage others in gym
class; tell peer they did a
good job
• Sit next to a different peer
If using curriculum…
• Use data to identify students
• Consider accessing community
supports
• Look at process and outcome data
• Consider using behavior lesson plans in
addition to curriculum based groups.
Outcomes (SPARCS) School Data – Office Discipline Referrals
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5
Nu
mb
er o
f O
DR
s
Students
ODR Comparison 14 Weeks Before Intervention and 14 Weeks on Intervention
ODR Total 14 Weeks Before Intervention
ODR Total 14 Weeks On Intervention
100%↑
23%↓ 25%↓
66%↓
45%↓
37%
Reduction
Overall
Outcomes (SPARCS) School Data – In-School and Out-of-School
Suspension
0
5
10
15
20
25
Total Number ISS Total Number OSS
To
tal
Nu
mb
er
Offenses
ISS and OSS 14 Weeks Before vs 14 Weeks During Intervention
for Group
Before
After
25% ↓
23%↓
Academic Seminar: Academic
and Social Supports for Middle
and High School Students at
Risk of Failure
Jessica Swain-Bradway, Ph.D.,
IL PBIS Network
Big Picture Students need to be engaged in work to succeed in school.
We must target secondary supports on reducing obstacle to success.
By increasing adult interaction
By communicating with home
By increasing predictability
By providing BOTH social and academic supports
We need to be efficient and effective. ASAP!
Academic Seminar • Secondary tier intervention for middle and high
school students at rick of school failure
• Combines critical components as identified by PBIS & school retention literature
• Targets immediate access skills v long term acquisition skills
• Focuses on escape maintained problem behavior • Building skills in organization
• Providing time, resources and assistance to complete work
• Providing increased acknowledgement for completing work
Academic Seminar > 45 minute class
5 minutes: Entry Task, Check-In
15 minutes skill building: foundational organizational skills
25 minutes supported homework completion: application of organizational skills to homework activities
> Daily class
> First period of the day
> Student participates in CICO cycle First period Academic Seminar class serves as
morning check-in period
Academic Seminar teacher coordinates CICO
Academic Seminar for Students who…
• Failing 1 or more content area class
• Engaging in escape maintained behaviors due to difficulty of work: – Incomplete homework, class work
• Could use additional supports organizing – Black hole back pack
– Missing work
– Don’t know due dates, class requirements
• Find at least one adult reinforcing
• Are not in “crisis”
• Freshman, Sophomores
Academic Seminar o Increases home school connection,
o Check IN Check Out card home component – for
some students
o Combines academic and social supports
o Academic Seminar curriculum
oSchool adjustment skills that allow access to academic
success
o Rapid response/continuously available o Class
o Ongoing data collection for decision making o Academic data: classroom grades, in-class activities o CICO data
Summary …
• Prevention-based systems, with capacity to scale-up and provide effective interventions for all youth (including those with or at-risk of EBD), can be effectively implemented in schools.
• Building a multi-tiered system of supports can increase
schools’ capacity to identify MH needs of a wider range of
students sooner, supporting families in a timely manner.
• Behavior support for students with emotional/behavioral
needs is not just a “Special Education” issue.
Summary (continued)
• Schools can’t do it alone…partnerships with families
and communities are needed to ensure success.
• It is possible for teachers and all school personnel to
feel competent and confident on how to prevent and
redirect and respond to behaviors of all youth
• Thank you for all YOU do!