impact of pbis for students with disabilities: systems ... · impact of pbis for students with...
TRANSCRIPT
Impact of PBIS for Students with Disabilities: Systems, Data, and Practices
Jessica Swain-Bradway, IL PBIS Network
Nanci Johnson, University of Missouri, Dept. of Special Education
Agenda
Introductions
Vulnerable Populations
The Changing Landscape
Evaluation Questions
PBIS Framework Increasing Access
PBIS Impact on vulnerable populations
Question and answer time
Objectives
Describe typical educational outcomes for students with disabilities.
Describe the impact PBIS can have on outcomes for students with disabilities.
Describe patterns of student outcomes from schools and districts implementing Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports with fidelity.
Engagement Time!
Questions to consider
Where are we in our implementation?
What do I hope to learn?
What did I learn?
What will I do with what I learned?
Putting outcomes for
students with IEP’s
into the context of
schools as systems to
educate and support
ALL students.
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
Vulnerable Populations
Bottom line: schools are only as successful as their LEAST successful students
PBIS is a framework for evidence based practices for ALL students
Special education = resource heavy
Who are your most vulnerable students?
Academic failure (Allensworth & Easton,
2005; Balfanz, & Herzog, 2005),
Problem behavior (e.g. disruption, disrespect, etc.) (Sweeten, 2006; Tobin & Sugai, 1999
Poor teacher relationships (Barber &
Olson, 1997)
History of grade retention (Allensworth
et al, 2005),
Low attendance (Balfanz, & Herzog, 2005; Jerald, 2006;
Neild & Balfanz, 2006), and
Diagnosed with a disability (NTLS-2, ; Wagner, Newman,
Cameto, Levine, Garza, 2006).
What do we know about school discipline referrals and special education students?
Students with disabilities tend to be over-represented in school discipline (Cooley, 1995; Fabelo et al., 2011; Krezmien, Leone, & Achilles, 2006;
Rausch & Skiba, 2006; SRI International, 2006; Zhang, Katsiyannis, & Herbst, 2004).
Impacts academic outcomes
Time spent engaged in learning activities
Time spent building positive relationships with adults
Time exposed to a “pro-social” peer group
Educational Outcomes for Youth with Emotional & Behavioral Disabilities
40%-60% drop out of high school (Wagner, 1991; Wehman, 1996; Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein,
2005)
Experience worse academic performance than students with LD (Lane, Carter, Pierson & Glaeser, 2006)
10%-25% enroll in post-secondary education (compared to 53% of typical population) (Bullis & Cheney, 1999)
High rates of unemployment/underemployment post-school (Bullis& Cheney, 1999; Kortering, Hess & Braziel, 1996; Wagner, 1991;
Wehman, 1996)
High rates of MH challenges, poverty, incarceration (Alexander, et al., 1997; Kortering, et. al., 1998; Lee and Burkham, 1992;
Wagner, 1992)
African American youth area over-represented in the EBD disability category (Skiba, 2007)
Youth with EBD….
Disengaged from school/family/ community
Most likely disability group to be in a segregated academic setting
Highest rates of disciplinary infractions
Perceived by teachers as having significantly lower levels of social competence and school adjustment (Lane, Carter, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006)
Our Charge
Supporting Vulnerable populations requires a school-wide effort
Universal foundations forward
Maximize resources
Prevention focused
The Changing Landscape
Things change in education…
Changes in federal and state funding have a big impact on current systems
Never a more critical time to be able to deliver evidence based practices with fidelity
Do the best we can with what we have and think about capacity: Short term
Long term
Could PBIS help?
With Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS, Horner et al., 2009; Sailor, Dunlap, Sugai, & Horner, 2009; Sugai & Horner, 2010), many schools have been able to reduce rates of discipline referrals for the school as a whole (Bradshaw, Debnam, Koth, & Leaf, 2009; Simenson et al., 2012).
National SWIS Data
2004-05 to 2012-23
Elementary Schools Mean and Median Major ODR per 100 students per day 2004-05 to 2012-13
N = 641 959 1316 1737 2137 2564 2979 3310 3321
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Mean MedianElementary Schools
Middle Schools Mean and Median ODR per 100 students per day 2004-05 to 2012-13
N = 256 334 423 536 672 808 889 972 985
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Mean MedianMiddle Schools
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Mean MedianHigh Schools
High Schools Mean and Median ODR per 100 students per day 2004-04 to 2012-13
N =76 104 155 198 250 330 392 479 503
Evaluation Questions
How do you know things are working? Where is the impact?
How do we know it’s working?
What is our Capacity?
• Access
• Fidelity
Is it making a difference in school outcomes? (ABCs)
• Within grade cohorts/ school: Attendance
Behavior
Completion of work
• District and School Trends:
• Educational Placement data for SPED
• Retention Rates
• Graduation rates
Capacity
Access: What is our anticipated need?
• How are we identifying? – Are we on track to match anticipated need?
• What percentage of students are receiving supports?
Fidelity: • Who is providing those supports?
• Are they implementing with fidelity? – Do they have what they need?
What proportion of students in your school
need additional supports ? T2? T3?
ABCs
Is it making a difference in school outcomes? (ABCs)
Attendance
Behavior
Completion of work
Research in elementary, middle and high school point to the ABCs as pivotal for success.
Do your current screening methods allow you to
“find” students BEFORE they fail?
ABCs
Aggregated data Trends
Outliers
Changes
Disaggregated data By IEP v No-IEP
By Disability category
By ethnicity and disability
By gender and disability
By grade and disability
PBIS Framework Increasing Access to Evidence Based Practices
Capacity
Who is accessing interventions?
Any student who demonstrates need
Think RtI
With and without IEP
Sub populations
Illinois Access Example
Tier 1: 1,655 schools (2012)
1,819 (2013) • High schools: 156 (2011) to 201 (2013)
Tier 2: Schools using CICO-SWIS
Schools • 91 schools (2009)
• 453 schools (2013)
Students • All:
– 4.6% (2010)
– 10.45% (2012)
• With IEPS: – 7.27% (2010)
– 18.79% (2013)
Can focus on school type:
Where will we target our resources?
District School
By Grade By Ethnicity
By IEP
Illinois Access Example
How has thinking about capacity guided systems? More students identified = more faculty / staff
providing supports
Rethinking interventionist role in the school • Teachers as CICO coordinators for smaller # of students
• Maximizing teaching assistants
• Extending training in CICO to MANY staff versus a small group
• Embedding CICO components into the classroom – Tier 2 as part of normal classroom operations.
Illinois Access Example
Tier 3: RENEW and Wraparound RENEW 2013:
• 17 schools, 65 students (increase of 2 from 2012) – 33 With IEPs
– 32 without IEPs
Wraparound 2013 • 20 schools, 75 students
– 34 with IEPs
– 41 without
How does this impact decision-making?
District School
By Grade By Ethnicity
By IEP
Fidelity
Part of the decision-making for Capacity building
Fidelity of CICO, RENEW and Wraparound
Planning how to provide access to effective supports
Fidelity
Capacity ISN’T providing poorly implemented / wrong supports to the ‘correct’ number of students
Capacity IS providing the appropriate supports, as intended, to the students who require those supports.
Fidelity checklists
PBIS Impact on vulnerable populations
National, State-wide
NATIONAL Impact
The School Wide Information System (SWIS, May et al., 2006; see http://www.swis.org).
SWIS data for 3 years: 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011
At least a 10% decrease in rate of major ODRs from the first to the last year
At least 5% of the students in their SWIS data had an IEP
Not an alternative or juvenile justice school Entered their enrollment and
number of school days
All Students with ODRs for All Schools (N = 85 schools)
22,399 20,890 18,709 16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
23,000
Year 1 2008-2009
Year 2 2009-2010
Year 3 2010-2011
Nu
mb
er
of
stu
de
nts
Students with IEPs with ODRs (N = 85 schools)
3,940 3,547 3,492 3,200
3,300
3,400
3,500
3,600
3,700
3,800
3,900
4,000
Year 1 2008-2009
Year 2 2009-2010
Year 3 2010-2011
Nu
mb
er
of
stu
de
nts
Schools implementing the PBIS framework reduced their rates of major ODRs for the
school as a whole,
the number of students with IEPs
Big DEAL!!
STATE: Illinois and Missouri Examples
Office Referrals, Attendance, Placement and Academics
Average % of Students With and Without ODRs 2009-11 (N=361 Illinois schools)
65% 66%
35% 34%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
General Ed Special Ed
Without ODRs With ODRS
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Stu
de
nts
Tier 1 Impact: State
Reduction in Office discipline referrals (ODRs) and Out of School Suspensions (OSS)
Elementary schools: ODRs per 100 students per day
• With IEPs: decrease of 3.6% – .195 to .188
• Without IEPs: decrease of 22.3% – .264 to .205
OSS per 100 students per day
• With IEPs: decrease of 41% – 3.91 to 2.30
• Without IEPS: decrease of 24% – 23.19 to 17.67
Tier 2 Impact: State
Average % of students succeeding on CICO:
Increased 12.3% (2010-13)
• 72.57% (2010)
• 81.47% (2013)
• Proportional success rates with and without IEPs
Tier 3 Impact: State
RENEW: (2012-2013)
Office referrals: 47% reduction • With IEPs: 52% reduction
• Without IEPs: 23% reduction
Placement Risk*: 11% reduction (school) and 20% (community) • With IEPs: 23% reduction in school risk
• Without IEPs: 8% reduction in school risk – * change to a more restrictive placement (self-contained,
off campus, alternative, juvenile justice, residential facility, etc.)
Questions / Discussion Time
General Questions and Let’s think back …
Things to consider about the decision-making process
Aggregated: Systems
Broad fidelity
Disaggregated: Target populations General education
Special education
Tier 2 and Tier 3
Ethnicity
Gender
What else?
Things to consider about the decision-making process
Risk factors? What can you influence within the school
setting? • Do you have access to those data?
Are you targeting what you can actually influence?
What can you NOT influence in the school setting?
Are you complaining about what can you cannot?
Things to consider about the decision-making process
Where are your gaps in this process?
Access?
Capacity to do analysis?
Targeting resources?
Other?
Solutions oriented
Team Implemented Problem Solving
www.PBIS.org
Team Implemented Problem Solving (TIPS)
Model: Improving Decision-Making
TIPS II Training Manual (2013) www.uoecs.org 53
From
TO
PROBLEM
SOLUTION
PROBLEM SOLVING
Resources:
A3: Team Initiated Problem Solving (download from conference site)
Poster #6: Increasing Meeting Efficiency with Use of the Team-Initiated Problem Solving Model (TIPS) at the Universal Level
www.PBIS.org
www.uoecs.org
Google “TIPS”
Thinking back
Where are we in our implementation?
What do I hope to learn? Did we provide relevant information?
What did I learn? Examples?
What will I do with what I learned? Share how this is applicable in the short and
long term.
Thank you!
We appreciate your time and attention.
Nanci Johnson,
Jessica Swain-Bradway