secondary/tertiary systems development at district & school levels lucille eber illinois pbis...
DESCRIPTION
Acknowledging IL PBIS Network Tier 2/3 Leaders Kimberli Breen Sheri Luecking Amy Lee Ami Flammini Michele Capio-Collins Dan KoonceTRANSCRIPT
Secondary/Tertiary Systems Development at
District & School Levels
Lucille EberIllinois PBIS
Network
National PBIS Leadership ForumHyatt Regency O’Hare, Rosemont, IL
October 8, 2009
Session A-5
Cindy Anderson University of
Oregon
“Context” for Model Development in IL
• IL EBD Network (1993-2000)– System of Care, Wraparound, Interagency– Began SW-PBS in 1998 (20-25 schools)
• IL PBIS Network (2000- present)– 1,100 schools supported by Network
• K-I Center: Tertiary Demo project– Six districts in 4th Year of Tertiary demo-54 schools– Two Districts in 2nd Year – 12 schools (Rep sites)– Five more districts in 1st year- 15 schools (Rep sites)
Acknowledging IL PBIS Network
Tier 2/3 Leaders
• Kimberli Breen• Sheri Luecking• Amy Lee• Ami Flammini• Michele Capio-Collins• Dan Koonce
Our Journey….
• From demos…• to replication….• to ‘business as usual’….
– Changes in Secondary and Tertiary courses• Tools integrated• Teaming structures better defined• Scheduled phone follow-up for team facilitators is
automatic
‘Baseline’ Issues Identified
Systems, data, Practices• District level challenges• Building-level roadblocks
Challenges for Districts
• Making Universal supports available for ALL• Referrals to Special Education seen as the
“intervention”• FBA viewed as required “paperwork” vs. a needed
part of designing an intervention• Relying on interventions the system is familiar with
vs. ones likely to produce an effect • Moving from one-student at a time (reactive
approaches) to capacity (systems) within schools to support ALL who need Secondary/Tertiary.
Observations of Systems/Practices As Demos Began
• Schools did not have continuum of interventions– Just 1 or 2 types of Secondary, & SpEd was seen as the
Tertiary “intervention”• Schools had some opportunity for referral for
assistance– But were NOT using data for automatic entrance into
interventions• No/minimal Universal screening• Lack of data-based decision rules (ex. 2 ODRs = entrance
to CICO)
Observations of Systems/Practices
As Demos Began
• Data weakest link– Data-based decision rules for entrance into secondary &
tertiary interventions unclear– Tracking intervention effectiveness was not on the radar
• Principals and clinicians were treating discipline problems/approaches, SpEd testing/placement, and “PBIS” as separate entities or silos within schools and districts.
Progress after 3 Years
• Tier 2/3 System Tools developed for both district and school use
• Increase in students accessing Tier 2/3 interventions
• Improvement in fidelity of interventions• Improved student outcomes• Changes in District systems/data/practices• Change in Network approach to building Tier
2/3 capacity
N=70
52
281
56 46
185
3524 41
157
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Office DisciplineReferrals
In-School Suspensions Out of SchoolSuspensions
Num
ber o
f Epi
sode
s
Baseline Time 2 Time 3N=70
FY 2009-Study IIi High Risk School Behaviors
Baseline plus Time 2 and Time 3 Study Cohort
1.71.88
2.64
2.37
1.782
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Baseline Time2
Home School Community
N=125
High Risk
No Risk
Minimal Risk
Moderate Risk
FY 2009-Study II Students by Overall Risk of Placement
1.921.76
2.64
2.442.19
1.942.14
1.83
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Baseline Time 2 Time 3
Home School Community N=70
High Risk
No Risk
Minimal Risk
Moderate Risk
FY 2009-Study III Students by Overall Risk of Placement
Baseline plus Time 2 and Time 3
More Students Access Tier 2/3 Interventions When Tier 1/ Universal is in Place
7.94%
4.95%
0%2%4%6%8%
10%
Partially Implementing(n=26)
Fully Implementing(n=125)
% stu
dent
s
FY09 School Profile ToolStudents Accessing Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions
Select comparison between matched samples of demo and non-demo schools filling out the
School Profile Tool and reporting levels of interventions by school.
Replication of Tertiary Demos Moving Rapidly
Phases of Implementation: Secondary Phase I (n=8 Replication Schools)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Team meetsregularly
Sec/Ter.tracking tool
used
Students arereferred for
tier 2interventions
DPR used 70% successrate for simple
tier 2interventions
Scho
ols w
ith It
em in
Pla
ce
Fa ll 2008 Spring 2009
Students with IEPs Spending more than 80% of School Day in General Education Setting
50.32
49.348.5
4949.5
5050.5
State TargetRatio
District Ratio
Ratio
Students with IEPs Served in Separate Placements
102122
7.484.91 4.58
9.01
02468
10
FY07 FY08
Ratio
90100110120130
# of
Stud
ents
Students w/ IEPs in separate placementsDistrict Ratio State Target
Improved Access to General Education for Students with IEPs
49.34948.5
72.6560.19 62.73
020406080
FY06 FY07 FY08
Ratio
State Target BardwellStudents with IEPs Spending more than 80% of Day in General Education Setting
System Tools Track Decreases in Special Education PlacementLovejoy Elementary School Special Education
Referral/Placement by School Year
13
64 5
15
2
119
0
5
10
15
20
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
# of
Stud
ents
Referred for Special Ed Testing Placed in Special Ed
The Developing Tier 2/3 Model….
System Structures Needed: Installation Stage
District-level…School-level…
Commitments for Success
– Tier 2/3 Coaching FTE
– Position Personnel to Facilitate Tertiary Intervention Teams for 3-5% of Students
– Comprehensive Training and “Practice”
– Data-based decision-making is part of all practices
– Tertiary District Leadership Team
– Tertiary Systems Planning team in each school
– Review Special Education and Disproportionality Data
– Review District Policies
District-wide Tertiary Implementation Process
• District meeting quarterly– District outcomes– Capacity/sustainability– Other schools/staff
• Building meeting monthly– Check on all levels– Cross-planning with all levels– Effectiveness of practices (FBA/Wrap)
• Tertiary Coaching Capacity• Facilitators for complex FBA/BIP and wraparound teams
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%
SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Check-in/ Check-out (CICO)
Group Intervention with Individualized Feature (e.g., Check and Connect -CnC and Mentoring)
Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)
Complex or Multiple-domain 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 (SAIG)
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised October 2009Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Tier 2/Secondary
Tier 3/Tertiary
Inte
rven
tionAssessm
en
t
Teaming at Tier 2
Secondary Systems Planning ‘conversation’– Monitors effectiveness of CICO, S/AIG, Mentoring, and
Brief FBA/BIP supports– Review data in aggregate to make decisions on
improvements to the interventions themselves– Students are NOT discussed
Problem Solving Team (‘conversation’)– Develops & monitors plans for one student at a time– Every school has this type of meeting– Teachers and family are typically invited
Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool
• Structured to follow 6 levels/types of interventions from Secondary through Tertiary
• Increases accountability – Schools have to count # of kids in interventions – Data-based decision-rules are necessary (Identify,
Progress-monitor, Exit)– Must define ‘response’ to each intervention type/level– Shows % of kids who responded to each intervention
• …..the tool assesses the success rate, or effectiveness of the interventions themselves
• Connects each level of intervention to the next level
Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups
• Three types of skills-building groups:1) Pro-social skills2) Problem-solving skills3) Academic Behavior skills** (Academic Content skills)
• Best if involves use of Daily Progress Report
• These are often the skill groups facilitated by social workers and counselors
Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups
• Selection into groups should be based on youths’ reaction to life circumstance not existence of life circumstances (ex. fighting with peers, not family divorce)
• Goals for improvement should be common across youth in same group (ex. use your words)
• Data should measure if skills are being USED in natural settings, not in counseling sessions (transference of skills to classroom, café etc.)
• Stakeholders (teachers, family etc.) should have input into success of intervention (ex. Daily Progress Report)
Use of Daily Progress Report
• Transference and generalization of skills
• Prompting of replacement behaviors
• Reinforcement of replacement behaviors
• Stakeholder feedback and buy-in
Teaming at Tier 3• Tertiary Systems Planning ‘conversation’
– Monitors effectiveness of Complex FBA/BIP & Wraparound supports
– Review data in aggregate to make decisions on improvements to the interventions themselves
– Students are NOT discussed • Individual Student Teams
– FBA/BIP Team per student– Wraparound Team per student
Student-Specific Teams
• Wraparound Team:– Family of child and all relevant stakeholders invited by
family. Wrap facilitators are trained to effectively engage families so that they will see that these teams are created by and for the family, and therefore will want to have a team and actively participate. School staff involved are informed that their presence is uniquely important for this youth and invited to participate.
• Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team: – Like the wraparound team, this team is uniquely created
for each individual child in need of comprehensive planning and the families are critical members of the team. All relevant individuals/staff are invited.
3-Tiered System of Support
Necessary Conversations (Teams)
CICO
SAIG
Group w. individual
feature
ComplexFBA/BIP
Problem Solving Team
Tertiary Systems Team
Brief
FBA/BIP
Brief FBA/BIP
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
Sept. 1, 2009
UniversalTeam
Universal Support
Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions Tracking Tool:NON-Examples of
Data-based Decision-rules for Defining Response
1. Responding to CICO: kid carries that DPR card
2. Responding to Social/Academic instructional groups: kid shows up for group - even if he’s not supposed to be there
3. Responding to Individualized CICO, Groups & Mentoring (i.e. CNC): roughly, maybe about 30-50% of the numbers are circled on the paper sheet (double digits are always good)
4. Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions: kid says “now he gets why he does what he does and promises never to do that behavior again”
5. Responding to Complex Function-Based Interventions: kid says “now he really gets why he does what he does and promises never to do that behavior again”
6. Responding to Wraparound Plans: kid comes to school every day with a smile, and the kid’s teacher has taken to wearing her original “Woodstock Nation” t-shirt on school spirit days – she’s a happy camper.
Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions Tracking Tool:Examples of
Data-based Decision-rules for Defining Response
1. Responding to CICO: Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks.
2. Responding to Social/Academic Instructional groups: Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks (demonstrating target skill(s) in classroom setting) and has had no new ODRs.
3. Responding to Individualized CICO, Groups & Mentoring (i.e. CNC): Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks, has had no ODRs or ISSs and has improved attendance.
4. Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions: Over a 4 week period, youth has demonstrated trends of decreased tardies and increased work completion (as demonstrated on individualized DPR).
5. Responding to Complex Function-based Interventions: Youth earned a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks (demonstrating target skill(s) in classroom setting), 50% reduction in ODRs and improvement in SIMEO.
6. Responding to Wraparound Plans: Improvement in reading skills as measured by DIBELS; and improvement with peer interactions (participating in extracurricular activities and socializing with peers on a regular basis) as measured by SIMEO.
Shift in Responsibility for Individual Student Data
Management
0
50
100
150
FY 05(N=18)
FY 06(N=26)
FY 07(N=26)
FY 08(N=69)
FY 09(N=125)
PBIS Network Staff School Social Worker
District Tertiary Coach Other School Personnel
Deciding Which Tertiary Level Intervention
is Most AppropriateComplex FBA/BIP (T200):• Brief FBA/BIP was not
successful
AND
• NONE of Wraparound criteria are present
Wraparound (T300+):• Youth with multiple needs
across home, school, community & life domains
• Youth at-risk for change of placement
• The adults in youth’s life are not effectively engaged in comprehensive planning (i.e. adults not getting along well)
Tertiary Students Receiving
Wrap v. Complex FBA FY08-09
6364
85
13
0
2550
75100
125
FY 2008 FY 2009
Stu
dent
s
Students Receiving Wraparound Tracked inSIMEO
Students Receiving Complex FBA Tracked in SIMEO
Systems-Response Tool“Finding” Students in Need of Tertiary
Supports
• Records the “system’s response” to youth behavior/circumstance
• Administrators and team members need to find the #s of youth that meet each criteria– Using the tool IS engaging in a ‘systems-reflection’– Prevents the hiding or mis-labeling of youth (ex. “We don’t
have any kids that need Wraparound”)
Systems-Response ToolSystem Response Options Total # of Students in Category for Time Period: List date at top of column
& total # of youth in each box
Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date:
A. Students being monitored by Secondary Systems Team (ex. CICO, CnC, FBA/BIP)
B. Students being monitored by Tertiary Systems Team (ex. Complex FBA/BIP, Wraparound)
C. Students being considered for Special Education Testing
D. Students with Special Education process in progress (being tested, placement being considered, etc.)
E. Students that were tested and did not qualify for Special Education
F. Students suspended on one occasion
G. Students suspended on two or more separate occasions
H. Students placed (or at risk of placed) in separate setting or “Safe School” (ex. Alternative to suspension program)
I. Students in Special Education setting, out-of-home school
J. Students in “short-term” restrictive placement in clinical setting (hospitalization)
K. Students with expulsion hearing in progress
L. Students expelled
Raw Data: Selected Items from Lukancic 08-09 Systems Response
ToolSystems Response Tool Lukancic 08-09
SY 07-08
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009 May 2009
Students being monitored by Secondary Systems Team (CICO, CnC, FBA/BIP) 27 7 15 14 19 24 42 25 45 26
Students being monitored by Tertiary Systems Team (Complex FBA/BIP, Wraparound) 14 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 19 19
Students being considered for Special Education Testing 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 2
Students suspended on two or more separate occasions 29 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
Examples of Practice Features that Need System
Support• District and School level• Staff development priorities (ongoing)• Changes in ‘policies’
– FBA/BIP, staff assignment, administrative roles– Use of data to guide practices (required)– Specialized services staff roles– Decision rules for making placements
Wraparound Skill Sets
1. Identifying “big” needs (quality of life indicators)• “Student needs to feel others respect him”
2. Establish voice/ownership 3. Reframe blame4. Recognize/prevent teams’ becoming immobilized by
“setting events”5. Getting to interventions that actually work6. Integrate data-based decision-making into complex
process (home-school-community)
Function• The purpose/reason for
demonstrating a specific type of behavior within a specific context/routine.
• Specific behaviors have been strengthened by consistent reinforcement.
• Family voice may not be necessary to identify function of behavior in the school setting.
• Once Function is correctly identified, putting a plan in place can produce rapid behavior change. This can be accomplished in a single meeting.
Big Need• The underlying reason preventing
successful experiences/interactions in multiple settings/contexts/routines
• When a big quality of life need is unmet, it impacts perception/ judgment, often resulting in chronic problem behavior.
• Family voice is necessary to identify the Big Need for the school setting.
• Once Big Need is identified, it takes a while to achieve and involves action planning across multiple life domains. Meeting the big need always involves multiple Child & Family Team meetings.
Function• Function is identified through
structured interviews focusing on the problem behavior, antecedents, consequences, and setting events
• Focus is on developing function-based support plan (replacement behavior, antecedent, consequence, and setting event supports).
• When achieved, situations improve for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher).
Big Need• Big needs are identified through
open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools with those engaged with the youth on a regular basis.
• Big Need statements motivate a family to participate on the team (know we are working on something ‘bigger’ than specific behaviors).
• If met, the need will improve quality of life for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher).
Big Need: “Andy needs to feel like he belongs at
school”• School Behaviors: Aggressive with peers, excessive
absences/tardies, history of academic failure• Other indicators: Family frequently relocated, lack of home
school communication, community support needs
Starting with FBA would not have been an effective approach—why?– Discussing problem behaviors would not have motivated family to
participate on team.– Probably not the first time schools have approached family in this
manner (“let’s talk about behavior”)– Open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools helped engage family– Bigger needs to work on to improve quality of life for youth and family
Four Phases of Wraparound Implementation
I. Team Preparation- 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”
Points to Remember:Engaging Families
Apply RtI to Family Engagement: don’t keep doing what hasn’t worked up
If engagement didn’t happen, how would you change your approach to effectively engage?
Professionals don’t get to choose or judge how families raise their kids.
Always start with a conversation (not a meeting) with the family, getting their trust and permission before talking with others.
Points to Remember:Engaging Professionals
Apply RtI to Teacher Engagement: don’t keep doing what hasn’t worked.
Just like we do for kids and families, recognize teacher strengths and needs. Teacher voice in the plan will ensure better outcomes.
Always start with a conversation (don’t hand them ‘forms to fill out”). Teachers need to be prepared for the wrap meeting and kept “in the loop”.
Use data to bring teacher and family together.
Using Data to Drive Decision-Making with
Wraparound
• More efficient teams, meetings and plans• Less reactive (emotion-based) actions• More strategic actions• More effective outcomes• Longer-term commitment to maintain success
Baseline Data -• Enhances the initial conversations with family
and team members.• Creates more efficient team meetings. • Takes the emotion out of team meetings. • Gives us a starting point for planning.• Helps us plan across all environments – Home,
School and Community
Wraparound: Data-based decision-
making
Wraparound Case Study “Ozzie” cont.Getting to Strengths and Needs at Baseline
Using Data and Voice & Choice
Follow-up Data (Time2, Time 3…)
• Helps the team celebrate progress and build on what is working;
• Shows small increments of progress that can be missed.
• Helps us progress monitor – if the plan is not working, re-work the plan!
• Helps us get buy-in from staff, administration, and skeptical team members.
Wraparound: Data-based decision-
making
Transition Planning for “Jacob”Using Data to get buy-in from the
new team