DESIGNING TIER 3 SUPPORTS:

READINESS, INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION, &

MOVING TO A RESULTS-DRIVEN

SYSTEMLucille Eber, Midwest PBIS NetworkDon Kincaid, University of South Florida

2014 National PBIS Leadership Forum

Session B7 | October 29th, 11:30 AM - 12:45 PM

Maximizing Your Session Participation

When Working In Your Team

Consider 4 questions:

– Where are we in our implementation?

– What do I hope to learn?– What did I learn?– What will I do with what I learned?

Where are you in the implementation process?

Adapted from Fixsen & Blase, 2005

• We think we know what we need so we are planning to move forward (evidence-based)

Exploration & Adoption

• Let’s make sure we’re ready to implement (capacity infrastructure)

Installation

• Let’s give it a try & evaluate (demonstration)

Initial Implementation

• That worked, let’s do it for real and implement all tiers across all schools (investment)

• Let’s make it our way of doing business & sustain implementation (institutionalized use)

Full Implementation

Leadership Team Action Planning

Worksheets: StepsSelf-Assessment: Accomplishments & Priorities

Leadership Team Action Planning Worksheet

Session Assignments & Notes: High Priorities

Team Member Note-Taking Worksheet

Action Planning: Enhancements & Improvements

Leadership Team Action Planning Worksheet

SESSION DESCRIPTION

This session will provide an overview of critical features for developing an effective and efficient Tier 3 system in a district or school. One state will share their efforts to address those critical features in a systems redesign process to produce a results-driven system that reflects the new direction of OSEP.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

• Identify the critical features of a Tier 3 system• Describe district and school responsibilities for

installing critical features• Learn from one state’s Tier 3 redesign efforts

to address critical features at the district and school levels

A 4 YEAR OSEP TERTIARY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

• What did we learn?

IT’S THE SYSTEMS…

READINESS CRITERIA IS CRITICAL

For example…

District level planning needs?Building-level planning needs?Re-positioning staff to coordinate and

facilitate evidence-based interventions?Changings in teaming structures?

TIER 2/TIER 3 READINESS

• District-level support is necessary for successful building-level Tier 2 & 3 implementation– District commitments should be in place

before Tier 2/Tier 3 training occurs• Building-level leaders should be aware and

supportive of what Tier 2/Tier 3 requires

DISTRICT TEAMING FOR TIER 3

• Facilitate quarterly District action planning to:– Clarify district-wide expectations for buildings– Offer support and accountability for Principals & other

leaders– Progress-monitor at multiple levels:

• District, school & individual youth in aggregate• Use district data to identify trends in placement• Use data to identify youth most at risk per building/district

– Oversee implementation, evaluation & coaching support to buildings

Engage and partner with families and community agencies

BUILDING LEVEL TEAMING TO

SUPPORT ALL TIERS

3-Tiered System of Support

Check-In Check-Out

Skills Groups

Group w. individual

feature

Complex

FBA/BIP

Problem Solving Team Meeting

Tertiary Systems Team Meeting

Brief

FBA/BIP

Brief FBA/BIP

Wraparound

Secondary Systems Team

Meeting

Plans schoolwide &

classroom supports

Uses process data; determines overall

intervention effectiveness

Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one student at a time

Uses process data; determines overall

intervention effectiveness

UniversalTeam

Meeting

Universal Support

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.

SYSTEMS TOOLS WERE NEEDED…

TIER 3 INTERVENTIONS LAYERED UP FROM TIER 1 AND TIER 2 SYSTEMS, DATA, AND PRACTICES

Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment

School-Wide Prevention Systems

SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, SD-T, EI-T

Check-in Check-out (CICO)

Group Intervention with Individualized Feature (e.g., CICO with ind. features and Mentoring)

Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)

Complex or Multiple-domain FBA/BIP

Person Centered Planning: Wraparound/RENEWFamily Focus

ODRs,Credits, 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 Multi-Tiered System of Support Model (MTSS)

Tier 2/Secondary

Tier 3/Tertiary

Inte

rven

tio

nAssessm

en

t

Individual Student Information System (ISIS)

UNDERSTAND HOW TO BUILD COACHING AND TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE PROCESSES THAT MATCH THE COMPLEXITY OF THE INTERVENTIONS NEEDED

FOR SUCCESS AT TIER 3

PHASES OF COACHING

• Phase 1: Modeling - Coach models desired skills & competencies: "Coach shows the facilitator how to do it"

• Phase 2: Support and Feedback - As team assumes responsibility, Coach provides support & feedback: "Coach supports and provides feedback as the

facilitator does it"• Phase 3: Monitoring - Coach observes as team

performs and self-monitors independently: "Coach celebrates the facilitator's ability to perform

and self-monitor"

AS YOU HEAR THE FL EXAMPLE, CONSIDER:

1) What have been your roadblocks to effective Tier 3 implementation?

2) How does your system currently blend Special & General Education?

3) Do building/district administrators regularly review implementation data at Tier 3? (fidelity, outcomes etc.)

REDESIGNING TIER 3 BEHAVIOR PRACTICES IN SCHOOLS

Don Kincaid, Ed.D.University of South Florida

kincaid@usf.edu

OVERVIEW

• Effective evidence-based processes exist to support students with serious problem behaviors

• Overall, not being done as intended/with fidelity in school settings

• Improved student outcomes are not being realized– Restraint/Seclusion– Suspensions/Expulsions– Disproportionality– Drop out/Graduation

• Many systemic issues contributing to problem

FBA/BIPS NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED AS INTENDED

• Technical Adequacy Tool for Evaluation (TATE)• Developed from:

• other technical adequacy research sources (e.g., Blood & Neel, 2007; Cook et al., 2007; Van Acker et al., 2005,)

• literature identifying core essential features of technically adequate FBA/BIPs

• Baseline measure for district• Action plan for improvement

SAMPLE: FIRST PAGE OF TATE

SAMPLE: FIRST PAGE OF SCORING RUBRIC

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS: FLORIDA• n = 144 FBAs/139 BIPs (some FBAs did not

submit a BIP)• 13 Florida School Districts• 3 Sources

– 35.1% Florida Department of Education– 11.3% Volunteer– 53.6% Florida PBS Project

• n = 38 (25.2%) evaluated by two trained raters– Supervised by BCBA-D

OVERALL TECHNICAL ADEQUACY RESULTS

• Mean percentages– FBA = 52%– BIP = 42% – Total = 47%

• Range of percentages:– FBA= 11% - 78%– BIP- 6% - 83%– Total = 19% - 78%

FBA TATE ITEM MEANSComponent Mean SD

FBA uses multiple sources 1.47 .68

Problem behavior identified/operationalized 1.48 .50

Meaningful baseline data reported 0.97 .66

Setting events considered/identified 0.35 .56

Antecedents/problem behavior 1.19 .56

Antecedents/absence of problem behavior 0.49 .74

Consequences/responses after problem behavior 0.79 .79

Hypothesis statement/linked to FBA data 1.08 .51

Valid function 1.48 .66

BIP TATE ITEM MEANSComponent Mean SD

Timely development BIP 1.54 .84

Hypothesis present (same as FBA hypothesis) 1.30 .84

Prevent/antecedent strategy 0.72 .62

Replacement behavior strategy (FERB or alternate) 0.84 .58

Reinforcement strategy 0.69 .56

Change response to problem behavior strategy 0.46 .66

Crisis plan considered and developed (if applicable) 0.88 .91

Follow-up/Progress-monitoring plan 0.85 .57

Plan for ensuring and measuring fidelity 0.09 .31

SUMMARY

• In general, completed FBA/BIPs do not meet technical adequacy standards

• FBAs higher quality/adequacy than BIPs

• Most BIPs consisted of “stock lists” of strategies with no detail on steps of implementation nor linked to the hypothesis

• Many BIPs only included consequential strategies

• Many of the consequential strategies were only in reaction to problem behavior occurring

OTHER INDICATORS OF PROBLEMS• Tier 3 Interview of Process• Conducted with districts to determine how

they are implementing Tier 3 within district• District team/policies• District procedures• School procedures

• First step prior to interview--identify Tier 3 district team to respond to interview

SAMPLE QUESTIONS FROM INTERVIEW • District/Team question:

– Does the district have a team whose purpose is to develop, modify, monitor, and evaluate the tier 3 system?

• District Process questions:– Describe how the district implements MTSS. Include

descriptions about how universal screeners are used for early identification and how academic and behavioral supports are integrated.

– Discuss the district’s methods for ensuring the the tier 3 (and FBA/BIP process) is being implemented with fidelity across all schools.

– Explain how the district uses data to make decisions at a district level on how many students are receiving tier 3 supports and the effectiveness of the supports.

SAMPLE QUESTIONS FROM INTERVIEW• Campus/school process

– Tell us about how your schools conduct FBAs.– Describe how the schools develop hypothesis-

linked support plans.

OUTCOMES OF INTERVIEWS

• Most districts did not have a Tier 3 District team established prior to the interview

• District training primarily consist of traditional FBA/BIP PPT presentations

• Some districts embed case studies; some have assignments

• None do job embedded coaching• Process within district is inconsistent

• General education vs. special education• Quality contingent upon skills of people on campus

OUTCOMES OF INTERVIEWS

• No districts have procedures to measure fidelity of FBA/BIP process

• No districts have processes to measure BIP implementation

• At the time of interviews, no districts had data systems to identify:• Students receiving tier 3 supports• Progress of students receiving tier 3 supports

• Inconsistency in identifying students needing tier 3 supports

INITIAL RESULTS

• Technical Assistance to 10+ districts• Many were able to ID areas to address• Most were not able to commit to long-term

change– Too hard– Too expensive– DOE does not require it

Tier 3 Redesign—Blueprint

TIER 3 BLUEPRINT RATIONALE• Tier 3 extends beyond special education

– Includes externalizing and internalizing behaviors (trauma, crisis, psychiatric, substance abuse, etc.)

• The FBA and BIP process is the foundation of Tier 3 (but may not be sufficient for many students with complex issues)

• There is a push from OSEP to balance a compliance based focused model with results oriented outcomes– Not just improvement on special education indicators

• Now is the time for change to start happening

CHALLENGES FACING SCHOOLS

•Three-fold1. There is an absence of clear guidelines for developing a

results-driven tier 3 system that is conceptually systematic yet practical and efficient for school application.

2. There is a shortage of trained personnel who can implement the practices with fidelity

3. There is a lack of ongoing supports provided to districts that will ensure implementation and sustainability of evidence-based, culturally responsive processes that improve outcomes for students with serious problem behaviors

BLUEPRINT GOALS

• Develop a clear vision and imperative for moving beyond compliance to a results-oriented tier 3 system

• Identify and define critical components of such a system• Create a blueprint to guide district leadership teams• Describe and develop a statewide system of technical

assistance to district leadership teams to facilitate systems change

• Produce a wide array of data outcomes at multiple levels (system, school, teacher, student)

State Workgroup Members

•Anne Bozik, BEESS•Sue Bentley, BEESS•Jackie Choo, Pasco•Brain Gaunt, USF•Heather George, USF•Rose Iovannone, USF•Khush Jagus, SEDNET•Jennifer Jenkins, BEESS•April Katine, DDC•Don Kincaid, USF•Kelly Kerry, FDLRS

•Amy Looker, Polk•Robin Morrison, Miami-Dade•Kevin Murdock, Hillsborough•Elisha Munago, UF•Maryanne Nickel, Monroe•Selina O’Shannon, Disability Rights•Jack Scott, FAU/CARD•Joanne Sweazey, Martin•Monica Verra-Tirado, BEESS•Patty Vickers, Osceola

PROCESS• April 2013-identified workgroup• Sent survey members about Tier 3 needs• Identified themes based on responses• Met as large workgroup -June 2013 to get

consensus• Identified sub-groups to further refine themes• Core writing team produced final draft

product (Rose Iovannone, Don Kincaid,, Kevin Murdoch, Natalie Romer, Chris Vatland)

Policies, Procedures& Practices

District to School Infrastructures

BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS: ENSURE…

1. All educators understand a tier 3 system of behavior supports.

2. Educators have beliefs, knowledge and skills to implement and sustain tier 3.

3. Sufficient professional supports at school level to implement Tier 3.

4. Sufficient district & school infrastructure alignment to evidence-based practices

5. Polices, procedures, and practices align between state, district, and schools.

Professional Supports

Skills to Implement

T3 Understand

ENSURE 1: ALL EDUCATORS UNDERSTAND TIER 3 SYSTEMS • A big idea:

– Multiple levels of tier 3• Consultative• Comprehensive• Wrap-around

– Not a one-size fits all– All involve functional thinking

ENSURE 2: EDUCATORS HAVE BELIEFS, KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS • Big idea:

– Essential to be competent in strategies that promote systems change as well as behavioral principles

– Much of tier 3 requires adult behavior change-more than student behavior change

• Knowledge of implementation science and variables impacting implementation

• Knowledge of adult-behavior change theories

ENSURE 3: SUFFICIENT PROFESSIONAL SUPPORTS • Big Idea:

– We need to shift the focus of professional development from primarily workshops, presentations, institutes to job-embedded PD and coaching that will build competencies of professionals within authentic environments

– Not every professional needs the same level of competencies.

ENSURE 4: SUFFICIENT DISTRICT & SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE • Big Idea:

– If a district does not have a functional data system that can review data at multiple levels (e.g., student, teacher, school, district) across all three tiers of support, the district will be unable to implement an effective tier 3 process.

ENSURE 5: POLICES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES ALIGN

• Big Idea:– Districts will need to establish a consistent

process/procedures for tier 3 supports across all schools for both general and special education.

NEXT STEPS

• Need to develop processes for change and professional development

• Need to begin implementing with selected districts– Readiness commitment– Size– Recruited vs Application– Funding and DOE commitment

• Need to develop supportive materials (checklists, assessments, resources, etc.)

• Need to align with multi-tiered supports for districts– Tier 1: General knowledge-model, support, Evaluation– Tier 2: Forms, checklists/tools– Tier 3: Intensive TA- individualized

SUGGESTED TIER 3 REDESIGN TA & TRAINING APPROACH

• Provide initial district level awareness training• Targeted TA and PD for district level teams based

on current needs– Develop evaluation/data/guiding questions for district leadership teams– Initial district interview– TATE– District checklist/assessment of needs– Initial action/strategic plan

• 1, 3, 6, 12 month, up to 5 year action plan (long-term)– Professional development (PD) and TA based on targeted plan– PD will be targeted for school staff roles (e.g., teacher PD will look different

than specialist who is responsible for facilitating FBAs/BIPs.– PD will be job-embedded, coaching format rather than institutes,

Powerpoints, etc.

DISTRICT SELF-ASSESSMENT

ItemScoring

Fully In Place Partially In Place Not In Place

District identifies and communicates Tier 3 redesign implementation goals

District establishes three levels (efficient, comprehensive, and wraparound) of tier 3 support

District encourages application of multiple methods for early identification of students who are at risk of needing tier 3 supports

District assesses readiness of school teams and implements matched training and TA to implement Tier 3 redesign procedures and practices. Fully In Place Partially In Place Not In Place

a. Have materials, personnel b. Need for training, coaching c. District conveys the importance of working as team, eliciting feedback from all

parties, establishing norms, and use of effective questioning strategies to gather information, get clarification, and gain consensus.

d. District ensures understanding of systems change, implementation science, and adult behavior change

e. District instructs adoption of evidence based interventions

f. District provides training and technical assistance to school teams on how to address barriers or problems to implementing Tier 3 redesign.

g. Translate blueprint into implementation plan

Districts ensure that information is shared with family and community members and that input is sought in development and maintenance of tier 3 supports. Fully In Place Partially In Place Not In Place

OUTCOMES/DATA TO BE GATHERED

• Student/Teacher Level– Student Information Systems – grades, EWS,

Attendance, Academic progress– Student behavior outcome data ( problem

behavior; appropriate behavior)– Implementation Fidelity of BIP – Procedural Compliance – DOE– Social validity-Teacher/Student/Parent

• School Level– Aggregate student data– Implementation of FBA/BIP process– Technical adequacy (TATE) – Social validity – school-wide T3

OUTCOMES

• District Level–TATE, Self Assessment, Interview–Overall data (student outcomes, fidelity)–Aggregate by school and students – Implementation fidelity of FBA/BIP

process• Fidelity of process, student progress

Effective data collection and

behavioral assessment

Evidence-based practices and

implementation fidelity

1. Decreases in problem behavior2. Increases in social skills3. Academic engaged time

FBA BIP Proximal Outcomes

Poor post secondary outcomes:unemployment, incarceration, mental health issues, poor social relationships

Increase in graduation,Decrease in dropouts,Reduced restraint and seclusion,Reduced suspension and expulsionReduced disproportionality

Distal OutcomesIneffective

Effective

Tier 3 Support Systems

Professional development, data based problem solving, systems

restructuring, etc.

CLOSING

• Systemic changes are essential for improving tier 3 processes in schools.

• We now have an approved state blueprint for doing so.

• The next 5 years will include widespread activities to improve supports for students with serious problem behaviors and focus on student outcomes.

DISCUSSION TIME

• What are your thoughts about the Ensures? Are there any big ideas that should be included?

• What are your thoughts about the TA/PD necessary to assist districts?

• What school district incentives would be necessary to maintain momentum toward goals?

• Should there be mandates/consequences for districts who do not implement an evidence-based tier 3 system?

REFERENCES

• Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 67-80. doi: 10.1353/etc.2007.0021.

• Cook, C. R., Crews, S. D., Wright, D. B., Mayker, G. R., Gale, B., Kraemer, B., & Gresham, F. M., (2007). Establishing and evaluating the substantive adequacy of positive behavioral support plans. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 191-206. doi: 10.1007s1086-006-9024-8.

• Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., Gable, R. A., & Potterton, T. (2005). Are we on the right course? Lessons learned about current FBA/BIP practices in schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 35-56. doi: 10.1007/s10864-005-0960-5.