swpbs (aka ebs) 10 year perspective george sugai osep center on pbis university of oregon center for...

SWPBS (aka EBS)10 Year Perspective

George SugaiOSEP Center on PBIS

University of Oregon

Center for Behavioral Education & Research

University of Connecticut

March 11, 2008

www.pbis.org www.cber.org

George.sugai@uconn.edu

PURPOSE: Acknowledge what we have learned over last 10 years

• Where did SWPBS come from?

• Has triangle been useful?

• What about academic achievement?

• Is SWPBS program or system?

• What about next 10 years?

World Events for 1997• Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess rematch

• Hong Kong reverts to China after 156 years as British Colony

• Space station 'Mir' experiences life threatening malfunctions & accidents

• 1st Harry Potter book published

• Clinton US president of US & Chretien Canadian prime minister

• Seinfeld, Men in Black, Candle in the Wind (E. John)

• Millions commemorate 20th anniversary of Elvis' death

• Princess Diana killed in Paris car crash

• 3 high school students killed in Paducah KY

• Iowa woman gives birth to septuplets; all survive

• Adult sheep named Dolly successfully cloned in Scotland

• Center on PBIS awarded to university collaborative

Where did SWPBS come

from?

Before1997

• No such thing as www

• No such thing as PBIS Center

• “Pre-PowerPoint”…transparencies

• Concern about school climate & problem behavior

• EBS “Effective Behavior Support”

1985

2008

EvolutionSchool-wide Positive

Behavior Support

1986Bohemia

Elementary (1) 1988Project

PREPARE (4)1994

Effective BehaviorSupport Project (6)1996Fern Ridge

Middle

1998OSEP TA

PBIS Center(~15/~1000)

2001OR Behavior

Research Center

2003OSEP TA

PBIS-2 Center(~40/~6600)

2007 USF Scaling Up

Center

2008OR PBS &PBIS-III?

Fern Ridge Middle School

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sep Nov Jan Mar May

Months

Office Referrals/School Day by Month1994-1995, 1995-1996

Taylor-Greene et al., 1996

Circa 1996

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

Pre

Post

SWPBS Conceptual Foundations

Behaviorism

ABA

EBS/PBS

SWPBS

PBIS objective….Redesign & support teaching & learning environments that are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable– Outcome-based

– Data-guided decision making

– Evidence-based practices

– Systems support for accurate & sustained implementation

Has “triangle” been useful?

Specialized Individual Interventions(Individual StudentSystem)

Continuum of Effective BehaviorSupport

Specialized GroupInterventions(At-Risk System)

Universal Interventions (School-Wide SystemClassroom System)

Studentswithout SeriousProblemBehaviors (80 -90%)

Students At-Risk for Problem Behavior(5-15%)

Students withChronic/IntenseProblem Behavior(1 - 7%)

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Tertiary Prevention

All Students in SchoolCirca 1996

Original logic: public health & disease prevention (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

“Triangle” ?’s you should ask!

• Where did it come from?

• Why not a pyramid or octagon?

• Why not 12 tiers? 2 tiers?

• What’s it got to do w/ sped?

• Where those % come from?

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

SWIS 06-07 (Majors Only)1974 schools; 1,025,422 students; 948,874 ODRs

Grades # Sch Mean Enroll

Mean ODRs/100/Day

K-6 1288 446 .34 (.37)1/300/day

6-9 377 658 .98 (1.36)1/100/day

9-12 124 1009 .93 (.83)1/107/day

K-(8-12) 183 419 .86 (1.14)1/120/day

Rule violations happen

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

ODR rates vary by level

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%

A few kids get many ODRs

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

ODR rates vary by grade

What about academic

achievement?

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

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

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

Circa 1996

RtI

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”

RtI Application Examples

EARLY READING/LITERACY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

TEAMGeneral educator, special

educator, reading specialist, Title I, school psychologist, etc.

General educator, special educator, behavior specialist, Title I, school

psychologist, etc.

UNIVERSAL SCREENING

Curriculum based measurement SSBD, record review, gating

PROGRESS MONITORING

Curriculum based measurementODR, suspensions, behavior incidents, precision teaching

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS

5-specific reading skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension

Direct social skills instruction, positive reinforcement, token economy, active supervision, behavioral contracting,

group contingency management, function-based support, self-

management

DECISION MAKING RULES

Core, strategic, intensive Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers

Responsiveness to Intervention

Academic+

Social Behavior

All

Some

FewRTI

Continuum of Support for

ALL

Dec 7, 2007

RCT etc.Algozzine et al., Horner et al., Leaf et al.,

• Improvements in school climate

– Decreases in ODR

– Improvements in perceived school safety

• Improvements in achievement

– Standardized achievement tests

• High levels of implementation fidelity

Is SWPBS Program or

System?

SYSTEMS

PRACTICES

DATA

SupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingDecisionMaking

SupportingStudent Behavior

Positive Behavior Support

Circa 1996

SYST

EMS

PRACTICES

DATASupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement

SupportingDecisionMaking

Basics: 4 PBS

Elements

Agreements

Team

Data-based Action Plan

ImplementationEvaluation

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION

PROCESS: “Getting Started”

Sample Implementation “Map”• 2+ years of school team training

• Annual “booster” events

• Coaching/facilitator support @ school & district levels

• Regular self-assessment & evaluation data

• On-going preparation of trainers

• Development of local/district leadership teams

• Establishment of state/regional leadership & policy team

Organization of behavioral subsystems

School-Wide

Non-Classroom

Individual Student

Classroom

Circa 1996

Classroom

SWPBSSubsystems

Non-classroomFamily

Student

School-w

ide

What does SWPBSlook like?

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

School-wide

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

• Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged

• Active supervision by all staff– Scan, move, interact

• Precorrections & reminders

• Positive reinforcement

Non-classroom

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Date

Baseline Pre-Correction Intervention

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3/1

4/ 9

5

3/2

8/ 9

5

3/2

9/ 9

5

4/3

/ 95

4/4

/ 95

4/7

/ 95

4/1

0/ 9

5

4/1

7/ 9

5

4/1

8/ 9

5

4/2

6/ 9

5

4/2

7/ 9

5

4/2

9/ 9

5

5/1

/ 95

5/2

/ 95

5/3

/ 95

5/4

/ 95

5/9

/ 95

5/1

0/ 9

5

5/1

2/ 9

5

5/1

5/ 9

5

5/1

6/ 9

5

5/1

7/ 9

5

5/1

8/ 9

5

5/2

3/ 9

5

5/2

4/ 9

5

5/2

5/ 9

5

5/2

6/ 9

5

5/3

0/ 9

5

5/3

1/ 9

5

6/1

/ 95

6/2

/ 95

6/5

/ 95

6/6

/ 95

6/8

/ 95

6/9

/ 95

6/1

2/ 9

5

6/1

3/ 9

50

10

20

30

40

50

60

Entering Cafeteria

Entering School

Exiting School

Problem BehaviorsStaff Interactions

• Classroom-wide positive expectations taught & encouraged

• Teaching classroom routines & cues taught & encouraged

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

• Active supervision• Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors• Frequent precorrections for chronic errors• Effective academic instruction & curriculum

Classroom

Romanowich, Bourett, & Volmer, 2007

• Behavioral competence at school & district levels

• Function-based behavior support planning

• Team- & data-based decision making

• Comprehensive person-centered planning & wraparound processes

• Targeted social skills & self-management instruction

• Individualized instructional & curricular accommodations

Individual Student

% Intervals w/ P.B. for Bryce

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

Sessions**Data points with arrows indicate no medication

% I

nte

rva

ls w

/ P

.B.

Baseline

Contra-IndicatedIndicatedContra-

IndicatedIndicated

% Intervals w/ P.B. for Carter

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

Sessions

% In

terv

als

w/ P

.B.

Baseline IndicatedIndicated Indicated Modified

Contra-ndicated

Contra-Indicated

• Continuum of positive behavior support for all families

• Frequent, regular positive contacts, communications, & acknowledgements

• Formal & active participation & involvement as equal partner

• Access to system of integrated school & community resources

Family

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

CONTINUUM of SWPBS

SECONDARY PREVENTION• Check in/out• Targeted social skills instruction• Peer-based supports• Social skills club•

TERTIARY PREVENTION• Function-based support• Wraparound/PCP• Special Education• •

PRIMARY PREVENTION• Teach & encourage positive SW expectations• Proactive SW discipline• Effective instruction• Parent engagement•

Audit

1.Identify existing practices by tier

2.Specify outcome for each effort

3.Evaluate implementation accuracy & outcome effectiveness

4.Eliminate/integrate based on outcomes

5.Establish decision rules (RtI)

What about next 10 years?

How do we…..• Increase adoption of effective

behavioral instructional technologies in classrooms & schools?

• Ensure high fidelity of implementation of these technologies?

• Increase efficient, sustained & scaled implementation of these technologies?

• Increase accurate, efficient, & durable institutionalized use of these technologies?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 BL CI/CO

CI/CO +75%

CI/CO +80%

CI/CO +90%

Helena

School Days

Per

cen

t of

Int

erva

ls E

nga

ged

in P

robl

em

B

ehav

ior

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jade

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Farrell

Began meds.

Class B Results

Fairbanks,Sugai, Gardino,& Lathrop, 2007.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ben

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Marcellus

BL CI/CO

CI/CO75%

CI/CO80%

FB plan

FB plan 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Blair

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Olivia

Per

cen

t of

Int

erva

ls E

nga

ged

in P

robl

em

Beh

avi

or

Study 2 Results

School Days

Leadership Team

Active Coordination

Funding Visibility PoliticalSupport

Training Coaching Evaluation

Local School Teams/Demonstrations

PBS Systems Implementation Logic

ValuedOutcomes

ContinuousSelf-Assessment

Practice Implementation

EffectivePractices

Relevance

Priority Efficacy

Fidelity

SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION & DURABLE RESULTS THROUGH CONTINUOUS REGENERATION

Questions• Pre-service preparation & induction process

• Educator expectations, learning histories, outcomes, & reinforcers

• Administrative leadership

• Collaborative inter-agency interactions

• Values, culture, context, learning histories, & reinforcers of organization

• Policy guidance & accountability

• Research & development – Urban ghettos, rural isolation, high schools, mental

health, etc., etc.

Also on Horizon: NCLB-II