Impact of PBIS for Students with Disabilities: Systems ... · Impact of PBIS for Students with...

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,

johnsonnw@missouri.edu

Jessica Swain-Bradway

Jessica.swainbradway@pbisillinois.org