swpbs: where did the triangle come from? george sugai osep center on pbis university of connecticut...
TRANSCRIPT
SWPBS:Where Did the Triangle
Come From?
George SugaiOSEP Center on PBIS
University of ConnecticutMay 17, 2006
www.pbis.org
www.swis.org
OBJECTIVES
• Celebrate your accomplishments & progress
• Review SWPBS features that relate to sustainability & expansion
• Look at some recent data
pbis.org
OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions &
Supports
• USF, KU, UK, MU, UNC, UF, UO & UConn
• IL EBD-PBIS Network, Shepperd-Pratt, May Institute
• www.pbis.org
Center Logic: SWPBS
Successful individual student behavior support is linked to host environments or school climates that are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
Behaviorism
ABA
PBS Foundations• Behavior & physiology• Learned behavior• Behavior & environment• Behavior lawfulness
• Observable behavior• Socially important questions• Applied settings• Functional relationship
PBS
PBSFeatures
Science of Human
Behavior
Local Context& Culture
Prevention Logic
NaturalImplementers
Evidence-Based
Practices
SystemsChange&
Durability
Continuum ofBehavior Support
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingStudent Behavior
OUTCOMES
Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement
SupportingDecisionMaking
4 PBS Elements
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
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
Brief Primer on “Triangle”
Why?• It’s showing up beyond Center
website
• “Basics” are being overlooked
• It’s a guide, not a standard
Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Lynn, N. (2006). School-based mental health: An empirical guide for decision makers. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. The Louis De la Parte Florida mental Health Institute, Department of Child and Family Studies, Research and Training Center for Children’s Mental Health.
http://rtckids.fmhi.usf.edu
“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 did those % come from?
Original logic: Public Health & Disease Prevention
Commission on Chronic Illness, 1957; Larson, 1994;Mrazek & Haggerty, 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
Prevention Logic for All(Walker et al., 1996)
• Decrease development of new problem behaviors
• Prevent worsening of existing problem behaviors
• Redesign learning/teaching environments to eliminate triggers & maintainers of problem behaviors
• Teach, monitor, & acknowledge prosocial behavior
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODR rate 04-05 673 schools Grades K-6 (292,021 students)
6+ ODRs
2-5 ODRs
0-1 ODR
88 (10)
9 (6)
3 (4)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 04-05 255 schools, Grades 6-9 (170,700 students)
6+ ODRs
'2-5 ODRs
'0-1 ODRs
75 (13)
16 (7)
9 (7)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 04-05 67 schools, Grades 9-12 (62,244 students)
6+ ODRs
'2-5 ODRs
'0-1 ODRs
20 (12)
11 (12)
69 (21)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 04-05 167 schools, Grades K- (8-12) (65,862 students)
6+ ODRs
'2-5 ODRs
'0-1 ODRs
77 (16)
15 (12)
8 (8)
Bethel School District Office Discipline Referrals
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Grade Level
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
SWIS summary 04-05 (Majors Only)1210 schools, 595,742 students
Grade Range Number of Schools
Number of Students
Mean ODRs per 100 per school day
K-6 673 292,021
Mean = 434
.39 (sd=.43)
6-9 255 170,700
Mean = 669
.96 (sd=.72)
9-12 67 62,244
Mean = 929
1.28 (sd=1.32)
K-(8-12) 167 65,862
Mean = 394
.88 (sd=.96)
Alt/JJ 48 3,915
Mean = 82
11.89 (9.03)
SWIS summary 04-05(Out of school suspensions [OSS]…Events)
Grade Range Number of Schools
Number of Students
Mean OSS per 100 students
K-6 673 292,021
Mean = 434
11.35 (18)
6-9 255 170,700
Mean = 669
46.38 (55)
9-12 67 62,244
Mean = 929
54 (84)
K-(8-12) 167 65,862
Mean = 394
34 (48)
Alt/JJ 48 3,915
Mean = 82
241 (216)
SWIS summary 04-05(Out of school suspensions [OSS]…Days)
Grade Range Number of Schools
Number of Students
Mean Days of OSS per 100 students
K-6 673 292,021
Mean = 434
10.9 (19)
6-9 255 170,700
Mean = 669
60 (72)
9-12 67 62,244
Mean = 929
67 (67)
K-(8-12) 167 65,862
Mean = 394
n/a
Alt/JJ 48 3,915
Mean = 82
314 (374)
What’s SWPBS look like?• Team- & data-based school-wide implementation• 3-4 year commitment for systems change• Small # positively stated expectations (within 1
min.) visible, defined, taught, & encouraged• >80% of kids/adults state expectations & give
behavioral example in context• >80% of kids receive at least weekly
acknowledgement• >70% of kids received 0 or 1 major disciplinary
referral• <10% received >2 major disciplinary referrals
Agreements
Team
Data-based Action Plan
ImplementationEvaluation
GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS: “Getting Started”
Initiative, Project,
Committee
Purpose Outcome Target Group
Staff Involved
SIP/SID/
etc
Attendance Committee
Character Education
Safety Committee
School Spirit Committee
Discipline Committee
DARE Committee
EBS Work Group
Working Smarter Team Matrix
Initiative, Committee
Purpose Outcome Target Group
Staff Involved
SIP/SID
Attendance Committee
Increase attendance
Increase % of students attending daily
All students
Eric, Ellen, Marlee
Goal #2
Character Education
Improve character
Improve character All students
Marlee, J.S., Ellen
Goal #3
Safety Committee
Improve safety
Predictable response to threat/crisis
All students
Has not met
Goal #3
School Spirit Committee
Enhance school spirit
Improve morale All students
Has not met
Discipline Committee
Improve behavior
Decrease office referrals
All students
Ellen, Eric, Marlee, Otis
Goal #3
DARE Committee
Prevent drug use
All students
Don
EBS Work Group
Implement 3-tier model
Decrease office referrals, increase attendance, enhance academic engagement, improve grades
All students
Eric, Ellen, Marlee, Otis, Emma
Goal #2
Goal #3
Sample Team Matrix
Data: Big Ideas
• Always develop questions first
• Accuracy of data linked to quality of data systems
• Context matters…interpret available data on local context
• Link intervention decisions to local data interpretations & desired outcomes
Nonclass
room
Setting S
ystems
ClassroomSetting Systems
Individual Student
Systems
School-wideSystems
School-wide PositiveBehavior Support
Systems
SCHOOLWIDE
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
CLASSROOM-WIDE
• 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
NONCLASSROOM SETTINGS
• Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged
• Active supervision by all staff
– Scan, move, interact
• Precorrections & reminders
• Positive reinforcement
SECONDARY/TERTIARY INDIVIDUAL
• 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
SW PBS Practices Evidence-based Practices
“Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academic & Behavior Supports”
• Big Ideas in Beginning Reading
• DIBELS
• Florida Center for Reading Research
• Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement
• National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems
• North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
• Oregon Reading First
• Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports
• School Wide Information Systems (SWIS)
• What Works Clearinghouse
Other SWPBS Outcomes
ODR Admin. BenefitSpringfield MS, MD
2001-2002 2277
2002-2003 1322
= 955 42% improvement
= 14,325 min. @15 min.
= 238.75 hrs
= 40 days Admin. time
ODR Instruc. BenefitSpringfield MS, MD
2001-2002 2277
2002-2003 1322
= 955 42% improvement
= 42,975 min. @ 45 min.
= 716.25 hrs
= 119 days Instruc. time
PBIS Messages
• Measurable & justifiable outcomes
• On-going data-based decision making
• Evidence-based practices
• Systems ensuring durable, high fidelity of implementation