Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports & Response-to-Intervention
George SugaiOSEP Center on PBIS
Center for Behavioral Education & ResearchUniversity of Connecticut
June 27 2011 [email protected]
www.pbis.org www.scalingup.org www.cber.org
PURPOSE
Examination of current SWPBS
data practices, systems, &
outcomes in context of
“responsiveness-to-
intervention”• Brief History & Rationale• PBIS Foundations• RtI• Data
Problem Statement
“We give schools strategies & systems for improving practice & outcomes, but implementation is not accurate, consistent, or durable, & desired outcomes aren’t realized. School personnel & teams need more than exposure, practice, & enthusiasm.”
Brief PBIS History &
Rationale
Context Matters!
Examples
Individual Student
vs.
School-wide
Assessments indicate that Reiko performs in average to above average range in most academic areas. However, in last 4 weeks her teacher has noticed Reiko’s frequent talking & asking & answering questions without raising her hand has become an annoying problem to other students & to teacher.
Reiko
What would you do?
Kiyoshi is a highly competent student, but has long history of antisocial behavior. He is quick to anger, & minor events quickly escalate to major confrontations. He has few friends, & most of his conflicts occur with peers in hallways & cafeteria & on bus. In last 2 months, he has been given 8 days of in school detention & 6 days of out of school suspension. In a recent event, he broke glasses of another student.
Kiyoshi
What would you do?
Mitch displays a number of stereotypic (e.g., light filtering with his fingers, head rolling) & self-injurious behaviors (e.g., face slapping, arm biting), & his communications are limited to a verbal vocabulary of about 25 words. When his usual routines are changed or items are not in their usual places, his rates of stereotypic & self-injurious behavior increase quickly.
Mitch
What would you do?
Rachel dresses in black every day, rarely interacts with teachers or other students, & writes & distributes poems & stories about witchcraft, alien nations, gundams, & other science fiction topics. When approached or confronted by teachers, she pulls hood of her black sweatshirt or coat over her head & walks away. Mystified by Rachel’s behavior, teachers usually shake their heads & let her walk away. Recently, Rachel carefully wrapped a dead squirrel in black cloth & placed it on her desk. Other students became frightened when she began talking to it.
Rachel
What would you do?
Fortunately, we have a science that guides us to…
ASSESS these situations
Develop behavior intervention PLANS based on our assessment
MONITOR student progress & make enhancements
All in ways that can be culturally & contextually APPROPRIATE
Crone & Horner, 2003; Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2007
Context Matters!
Intermediate/senior high school with 880
students reported over 5,100 office discipline
referrals in one academic year. Nearly 2/3 of students have received at least one
office discipline referral.
“159 Days”
Reiko is in this school!
5,100 referrals =
76,500 min @15 min =
1,275 hrs =
159 days @ 8 hrs
During 4th period, in-school detention room has so many students
that the overflow is sent to the counselor’s office.
Most students have been assigned for being in the hallways after the
late bell.
“Da place to be”
Kiyoshi is in this school!
During Advisory Class, the “sportsters” sit in the back
of the room, & “goths” sit at the front. Most class
activities result in out of seat, yelling arguments
between the two groups.
“Cliques”
Mitch is in this school!
Three rival gangs are competing for “four
corners.” Teachers actively avoid the area.
Because of daily conflicts, vice principal has moved her desk to
four corners.
“4 Corners”
Rachel is in this school!
1980s SW
Discipline Problem
Reactive
Non-constructive
Emphasis on punishment
Poor implementation
fidelity
Limited effects
“Big Ideas” from Early Years
Teach & recognize behavior directly, school-wide
• Colvin & Sugai (1992)
Focus adult behavior in team-based SW action planning
• Colvin, Kame’enui, & Sugai (1993)
Consider ALL as foundation for some by establishing local behavioral expertise• Sugai & Horner (1994)
Integrate evidence-based practices in 3-tiered prevention logic• Walker, Horner, Sugai, Bullis, Sprague, Bricker, & Kaufman (1996)
“Early Triangle”
(p. 201)Walker, Knitzer,
Reid, et al., CDC
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
Prevention Logic for AllBiglan, 1995; Mayer, 1995; Walker et al., 1996
Decrease development
of new problem
behaviors
Prevent worsening &
reduce intensity of
existing problem
behaviors
Eliminate triggers &
maintainers of problem
behaviors
Teach, monitor, &
acknowledge prosocial behavior
Redesign of teaching environments…not students
SWPBS (aka PBIS/RtI) is for enhancing adoption & implementation of
Continuum of evidence-based interventions to achieve
Academically & behaviorally important outcomes for
All students
Framework
Changing Adult Behavior
1.
“Change is slow,
difficult, gradual process
for teachers
2.
“Teachers need to receive regular
feedback on student learning
outcomes”
3.
“Continued support & follow-up
are necessary after initial training”
Guskey, 1986, p. 59
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingStudent Behavior
OUTCOMES
Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement
SupportingDecisionMaking
IntegratedElements
Universal
Targeted
Intensive
All
Some
FewContinuum of Support for
ALL
Dec 7, 2007
Universal
Targeted
IntensiveContinuum of
Support for ALL“Theora”
Dec 7, 2007
Science
Soc Studies
Reading
Math
Soc skills
Basketball
Spanish
Label behavior…not people
Universal
Targeted
IntensiveContinuum of Support for
ALL:“Molcom”
Dec 7, 2007
Prob Sol.
Coop play
Adult rel.
Anger man.
Attend.
Peer interac
Ind. play
Label behavior…not people
Self-assess
“Response-to-Intervention”
Need for
better
Data-based
decision making
Early & timely
decision making
Comprehensive screening
Support for non-
responders
Implementation Fidelity
Instructional accountability & justification
Assessment-instruction alignment
Resource & time
use
IMPLEMENTATION W/ FIDELITY
CONTINUUM OF EVIDENCE-BASEDINTERVENTIONS
CONTENT EXPERTISE &
FLUENCY
TEAM-BASED IMPLEMENTATION
CONTINUOUSPROGRESS
MONITORING
UNIVERSAL SCREENING
DATA-BASEDDECISION MAKING
& PROBLEM SOLVING
RtI
EARLY INFLUENCES
CBMEarly
Screening & Intervention
Prereferral Interventions
Teacher Assistance TeamingDiagnostic
Prescriptive Teaching
Behavioral & Instructional Consultation
Applied Behavior Analysis
Precision Teaching
Sep-06 Feb-07 Sep-07 Feb-080
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
44
57
65
90
36
30
26
9
19
13
9
1
LR
SR
AR
Month
Per
cen
t2006-2008 K-1 (same):
Phonemic Segmentation Fluency
Etc.
Literacy & Writing
Numeracy &
SciencesSWPBS
Specials
Social Sciences
Responsiveness to Intervention
Implementation
Framework
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), 100-115
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). The impact of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462-473.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133-148.
Bradshaw, C.P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K.B., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26.
Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J., (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133-145.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), 1-14.
RCT & Group Design PBIS Studies
• Reduced major disciplinary infractions
• Improvements in academic achievement
• Enhanced perception of organizational health
& safety• Improved school climate• Reductions in teacher reported bullying
behavior
“Making a turn”
IMPLEMENTATION
Effective Not Effective
PRACTICE
Effective
Not Effective
Maximum Student Benefits
Fixsen & Blase, 2009
Detrich, Keyworth, & States (2007). J. Evid.-based Prac. in Sch.
Startw/
What Works
Focus on Fidelity
Funding Visibility PolicyPoliticalSupport
Training CoachingBehavioral Expertise
Evaluation
LEADERSHIP TEAM(Coordination)
Local School/District Implementation Demonstrations
SWPBS Implementation
Blueprint
www.pbis.org
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingStudent Behavior
OUTCOMES
Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement
SupportingDecisionMaking
IntegratedElements
Classroom
SWPBSPractices
Non-classroom Family
Student
School-w
ide
• Smallest #• Evidence-based
• Biggest, durable effect
SCHOOL-WIDE1.1. Leadership team
2.Behavior purpose statement
3.Set of positive expectations & behaviors
4.Procedures for teaching SW & classroom-wide expected behavior
5.Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected behavior
6.Continuum of procedures for discouraging rule violations
7.Procedures for on-going data-based monitoring & evaluation
EVIDENCE-BASED
INTERVENTIONPRACTICES
CLASSROOM1.All school-wide2.Maximum structure & predictability in routines & environment3.Positively stated expectations posted, taught, reviewed, prompted, & supervised.4.Maximum engagement through high rates of opportunities to respond, delivery of evidence-based instructional curriculum & practices5.Continuum of strategies to acknowledge displays of appropriate behavior.6.Continuum of strategies for responding to inappropriate behavior.
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
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
Responsiveness to Intervention
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
Circa 1996
~80% of Students
~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• • • • • •
~15%