How Did They Do That?

Improving Student Achievement Outcomes with Participatory Leadership, Shared Decision Making, and PBIS

Bonnie Brown, Dustin Dykes, Sean CooperHouston County Schools

Welcome to Thomson Middle School

Student Enrollment Demographics

Indicator Student Population Percentage

Students with Disabilities 13%

Asian 3%

Black 44%

Hispanic 6%

White 44%

Multiracial 2%

Eligible for Free / Reduced Lunch 66%

Celebrate Good Times (Come On)In 2013: 100% of Thomson’s Special Education 6th Grade students passed the CRCT in reading.

100% Thomson’s Special Education 7th Grade students passed CRCT in reading and language arts.

92% passed 6th grade ELA (28% increase)

94% passed 7th grade math (42% increase)

Also our GAA students passed 99.99999% of all tested areas.

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

Discipline Referrals down to 817!

2008-2009-1169 2009-2010-1611 2010-2011-1866 2011-2012-1398 2012-20130

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Number of Infinite Campus entries

Number of AS400 entries

Halloween Check Point

2012- Year 1 Implementation 226 Referrals

2013- Year 2 Implementation 163 Referrals

63 less…Yay TMS…whoop whoop

CHANGE

Department Level

Mental Models and Mindsets Mental Models are “deeply ingrained assumptions,

generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (Senge, 1990, p. 24)

Mental models can assist educational organizations in producing positive, effective, sustainable change outcomes

A dysfunctional organizational mental model produces negative outcomes (Duffy, 2008, p.7)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=34JQEH9uuPJJDM&tbnid=DETfaqti97uO9M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://mudpuppy.wordpress.com/category/cs-lewis/&ei=y0lxUriwB4ri2QXtj4HgBg&bvm=bv.55617003,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNGdmmPk6mLLTPkxS4H2O1gnGmhMNQ&ust=1383242502340396

Meeting Student Needs Educational leaders are responsible for fostering a school

culture that “embraces high academic standards and expectations for all students” (Boyer & Lee as cited in DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004, p. 3)

When educational organizations fail to meet achievement outcomes for students with disabilities they often blame setting events that include lack of student motivation and poor parenting (Leech & Fulton, 2008, p. 631)

“Defeatist attitude carries the seeds of its own fulfillment” (Bossidy as cited in Tichy & Cohen, 1998, p. 28) which enables educators and strongly impacts individual teacher ownership of student achievement.

Meeting Student Needs (Cont.) Positive achievement outcomes for students with disabilities

strongly correlate with educational leaders who support special education teacher partnerships, provide appropriate support tools and provide ongoing professional development (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff; Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum; Kearns, Kleinert, Clayton, Burge, & Williams; Klinger, Arguelles, Hughes, & Vaughn as cited in DiPaola et al., 2004, p. 3).

Kanter - The Change Wheel “A culture for change needs to be programmed into an

organization’s (or a wider system’s) method of operating. Without fundamental systematic change, organizations will always revert to their basic pattern, like the default position on a computer program” (p. 1)

A single intervention interjected into a dysfunctional organization will not produce positive change outcomes, however combined interventions contribute to systematic change (p. 1)

Kanter - The Change Wheel (Cont.)

Target Areas: Interrelated Special Education Teachers

New Leadership Attitude Initiative Accountability

Current Mental Model Compared to “The Change Wheel”

Element Current Mental Model

Common Theme, Shared Vision • No clear leadership vision for the future

• Limited mutual trust

• No collaboration between teachers

• No accountability and ownership of student achievement

Symbols and Signals • Limited leadership modeling of desired behaviors

Governance and Accountability Structure • Management mentality of following procedures versus initiative

and interventions for change

• No intervention team or shared decision making practices

Education, Training, Action Tools • Limited professional development linked to identified growth

needs

Champions and Sponsors • No veteran teacher support of change

Current Mental Model Compared to “The Change Wheel”

Element Current Mental Model

Quick Wins and Local Innovations • None

Communications, Best Practice Exchange • Special Education Department meetings communicate system

level expectations, processes, and procedures only

• School Improvement Plan growth areas for students with

disabilities are not shared or discussed with teachers

Policy, Procedures, System Alignment • Practices do not address school change needs

• No use of research based interventions to meet individual

student learning needs

Measures, Milestones, and Feedback • Inconsistent data collection and analysis produced poor

achievement outcomes for students with disabilities

• No feedback or accountability

Rewards and Recognition • None

Change Strategies Tier 3 / 4 Reading and Math Intervention Team

Program Specialist / API / Interrelated Teachers

CRCT and GRASP Data

Shared Decision Making (Departmental) Effective Meeting Module

Consensus

Research Based Interventions Corrective Reading and PLATO Learning

PBIS

Professional Development Follow-Up

Mental Model Movement

Element Mental Model Movement

Common Theme, Shared Vision • Leader and team defined vision for the future

• Establishment of trust

• Teacher instructional collaboration

• Teacher accountability and ownership of student achievement

has increased

Symbols and Signals • Leaders consistently model desired behaviors

Governance and Accountability Structure • Participatory leadership

• Shared decision making practices made using consensus

Education, Training, Action Tools • Professional development linked to identified student, teacher,

and program growth needs

Champions and Sponsors • Veteran teacher “buy-in” and support of change

Mental Model Movement

Element Mental Model Movement

Quick Wins and Local Innovations • GRASP data show increases in individualized student

achievement

Communications, Best Practice Exchange • Effective meeting practices implemented

• Special Education Department meetings communicate system

level expectations, processes, and procedures

• School Improvement Plan growth areas communicated with

teachers

Policy, Procedures, System Alignment • Practices address school change needs

• Research based interventions are used to meet individual

student learning needs

Mental Model Movement

Element Mental Model Movement

Measures, Milestones, and Feedback • Consistent and meaningful data collection and analysis for

students with disabilities

• Team determined to use GRASP assessments to drive IEP goals

and objectives at all grade levels

• Performance outcome feedback and accountability at team

and individual teacher levels

Rewards and Recognition • Consistent recognition of positive outcomes and individual

efforts and innovations toward change

System Level

Source: www.pbis.orgr

School-Wide Level

Don’t let the sweet face fool you!

I did it! Yay me!

What is PBIS and where did it come from? PBIS gained significant attention when amendments to the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) became law on June 4, 1997 (Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, 2000).

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act mandate to use PBIS strategies led to the evolution of PBIS into a school-wide approach (SWPBIS), used extensively across the country (Sugai et al., 2000). Over the past decade, school districts have begun to use this school-wide approach to address common challenging behaviors of students in their schools. (Landers, Courtade, & Ryndak , 2012

Why am I so interested in SWPBIS?

I’ve got to fix this! Discipline Committee

Clear expectations for all (Discipline Chart, Power point for students, Locker Test)

Create a System for teachers (New form, team leaders)

Professional Learning (Building relationships, facing the brutal facts, handle your own business)

What happened?

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Number of AS400 entries

2008-2009-1169

2009-2010-1611

2010-2011-1866

2011-2012-1398

The New Solution-SWPBIS

The Pyramid 5%

5%

10%

80%

The Pyramid at TMS

13.3% (108)

3.9% (32)

9.7% (79)

73% (593)

I know you’ve seen it before but… “If a child doesn’t know how to read, we teach.

“If a child doesn’t know how to swim, we teach.”

“If a child doesn’t know how to multiply, we teach.”

“If a child doesn’t know how to drive, we teach.”

“If a child doesn’t know how to behave, we…………teach? ………..punish?”

“Why can’t we finish the last sentence as automatically as we do the others?”

Tom Herner (2002) National Association of State Directors of Special Education

Methods of Intervention Universal-all students in the building are taught expectations for common

areas (lunchroom, restroom, hallways, etc.). When expectations are met, students are rewarded with “blue cards.” When expectations are not met, the expectations are re-taught and an “orange card” may be issued.

Tier 2, Tier 3, and SWD with behavior goals use a check in check out sheet.

Token Economy- not only rewards positive behavior but provides real world money management

Your Turn! Take two minutes and discuss with someone close to you who is not at your

school one way that you or a co-worker effectively teaches, recognizes, or reinforces positive behavior.

Now take one more minute to share with someone else that is close to you how your school recognizes your staff to reinforce positive behavior.

You are the experts! If your school has not bought in to the SWPBIS system yet, you can be the

trailblazers!

Approach your administrators from this angle It takes 20 minutes to deal with the average office referral

We had a reduction of 581 referrals

That saves your administrators 193.6 hours or 24 school days!

References Bennis, W. (1989). On Becoming a Leader. [iBooks version] Retrieved from

http://store.apple.com/us DiPaola, M., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2004). School Principals and Special

Education: Creating the Context for Academic Success. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(1), 1-10. Duffy, F. M. (2009). Paradigms, Mental Models, and Mindsets: Triple Barriers to Transformational

Change in School Systems: Part 1. Retrieved from the Connexions Web site: http://cnx.org/content/m26229/1.1/

Good, J. W., & Reynolds, C. (2012). Effective Meetings Module. (p. pp. 1-14). Duffy, F. M. (2009). Paradigms, Mental Models, and Mindsets: Triple Barriers to Transformational

Change in School Systems: Part 1. Retrieved from the Connexions Web site: http://cnx.org/content/m26229/1.1/

Good, J. W., & Reynolds, C. (2012). Effective Meetings Module. (p. pp. 1-14). Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge (4th ed.). [iBooks version] Retrieved

from http://store.apple.com/us Leech, D., & Fulton, C. R. (2008). Faculty Perceptions of Shared Decision Making and the Principal’s

Leadership Behaviors in Secondary Schools in a Large Urban District. Education, 28, 630-644. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. [iBooks

version]. Retrieved from http://store.apple.com/us Tichy, N. M., & Cohen, E. (1998, July). The Learning (Teaching) Organization. Training &

Development, 52(7), 26-33.