January 17, 2013 Initial Meeting of Statewide Advisory Councilpbisaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013-01-17-PBIS-AC-Intro.pdf · Created by Rob Horner & Celeste Rossetto Dickey,

January 17, 2013Initial Meeting of Statewide Advisory Council

1Tuesday, February 26, 13

Jan.17, 2013

1. Introductions

2. Review Agenda

3. School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

4. History of PBIS in Arizona

5. Arizona Developmental Disabilities Planning Council

6. LUNCH

7. SW-PBIS Implementation Blueprint

8. Next Meeting

Agenda


Jan.17, 2013

Introductions

• Please take a moment to introduce yourself to the Advisory Committee.


Jan.17, 2013

Meeting Norms & Expectations

Advisory Committee Norms

•

•

•

•

•


Jan.17, 2013

Team Roles

• Team vs Committee

• Leader

• Facilitator

• Data Profiler

• Recorder

• Time Keeper

• Member


Created by Rob Horner & Celeste Rossetto Dickey, PBIS.org (2009)Modified by Daniel Gulchak, PBISaz.org (2013)

Overview of Nationwide SW-PBIS


Jan.17, 2013

KWL Activity

• What do you Know

• What do you Want to Know

• What have you Learned

What is PBIS?

What are the Outcomes?

Why is PBIS Needed in Arizona?


Jan.17, 2013

Purposes

1. Define core features of School-wide PBS

2. Define implementation steps

3. Define role of a Statewide Leadership Team orAdvisory Committee


Jan.17, 2013

Basic Messages

The social behavior of students affects the effectiveness of schools

as learning environments

• Improving the social behavior of students requires investing in the school-wide social culture as well as in strategies for classroom, and individual student intervention.


Jan.17, 2013

Logic for School-wide PBS

Schools face a set of difficult challenges today

• Multiple expectations (Academic accomplishment, Social competence, Safety)

• Students arrive at school with widely differing understandings of what is socially acceptable.

• Traditional “get tough” and “zero tolerance” approaches are insufficient.

Individual student interventions

• Effective, but can’t meet need

School-wide discipline systems

• Establish a social culture within which both social and academic success is more likely


Jan.17, 2013

The Challenge

80% of principals indicate that “too much time is spent dealing with disruptive and dangerous students”

- National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1997

81% of teachers polled state that their worst behaved students are a barrier

to effective education in their classrooms

- Public Agenda, 2004


Jan.17, 2013

What isSchool-wide Positive Behavior Support?

School-wide PBS: A systems approach for establishing the social culture and individualized behavioral supports needed for schools to achieve both social and academic success for all students.

Evidence-based features of SW-PBS• Prevention• Define and teach positive social expectations• Acknowledge positive behavior• Arrange consistent consequences for problem behavior• On-going collection and use of data for decision-making• Continuum of intensive, individual interventions. • Administrative leadership – Team-based implementation (Systems that support

effective practices)


Jan.17, 2013

Establishing a Social Culture

Common Vision/Values

Common Language

Common Experience

MEMBERSHIP


SYSTEMS

PRACTICESDAT

A

SupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingDecisionMaking

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Social Competence &Academic Achievement

SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIORSUPPORT


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 BEHAVIORSUPPORT


Jan.17, 2013

• See PBIS Advisory Committee Binder for more research and scientifically proven facts about PBIS

• PBIS Research


Jan.17, 2013

What do you see in schools using SW-PBS?

• Students who are able to tell you the expectations of the school.

• Students who identify the school as safe, predictable and fair.

• Students who identify adults in the school as actively concerned about their success.


Sacaton Middle School, AZ


Jan.17, 2013

• Team-based systems for Targeted and Intensive behavior support for children with more significant needs.



Jan.17, 2013

Teams meeting regularly to:

• Review their data

• Determine if PBS practices are being used

• Determine if PBS practices are being effective

• Identify the smallest changes that are likely to produce the largest effects

• But focusing on the use of evidence-based practices!



Jan.17, 2013

Faculty and staff who are active problem solvers:

• They have the right information

• They have efficient organizational structures

• They have effective outcome measures

• They have support for high-fidelity implementation and active innovation.



Jan.17, 2013

Implementing PBIS is related to reduction in Office Discipline Referrals (ODR)

0

30

60

90

120

01-02 02-03 03-04

SET Total Score and ODR/100 Students/Year: One Chicago School

SET

Tota

l: O

DR

per

100

SETODR


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Laure

l Woo

ds

Dashe

r Gree

n

Shady

Spri

ng

McCorm

ick

Lexin

gton P

ark

Feathe

rbed I

nterm

ediat

e

Mars E

states

Pocom

oke E

S

Pocom

oke M

S

Deep C

reek M

S

42%

22%

37%

55%

50%

26%

73%

55%57%57%

89%88%

97%94%

90%

78%

87%

97%

80%

86%

Comparison of SET Score and Reduction in ODR Maryland

SET ScoreODR Reduction


0

0.23

0.45

0.68

0.90

Not at Criterion: N = 87 At Criterion: N = 53

M

ean

OD

Rs

per 1

00 s

tude

nts

per D

ay Schools at criterion average a 25% lower ODR rate

ODR rates (Majors only) for Schools Meeting and Not Meeting PBS Implementation Criteria: Illinois


0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %

Irving ES 200102 Irving ES 200203 Irving ES 200304 Irving ES 200405

ODR/100 1.13 .51 .39 .08

TIC Total 76% 82% 82% 88%

Comparison of TIC and ODR Rate at Irving ES 2001-2005

0-1 ODR

2-4ODR

5+


0

38

75

113

150

01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05

Irving Triangle (0-1); SET and ODR Summary 2001-2005Pe

cent

or R

ate

% 0-1TICODR


Jan.17, 2013

How does a Reduction in ODR Impact Schools?


0%

17.50%

35.00%

52.50%

70.00%

PBIS NOT in place N = 69 PBIS IN place N = 52

62.19%

46.60%

Mea

n Pe

rcen

tage

of 3

rd g

rade

rs m

eetin

g IS

AT R

eadi

ng S

tand

ard

Illinois Mean Proportion of Students Meeting ISAT Reading Standard t test (df 119) p < .0001


Jan.17, 2013

• See PBIS Advisory Committee Binder for more examples

• State Reports


Jan.17, 2013

The Effects of School-wide PBS within a Randomized Control Effectiveness Trial

Rob Horner, George Sugai, Keith Smolkowski,

Lucille Eber, Jean Nakasato, Anne Todd,

Jody Esperansa

OSEP TA Center on Positive Behavior Support

In press in the Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention


Jan.17, 2013

Why should we be committed to implementation of SW-PBIS?

Reduction in problem behavior• Office discipline referrals• Suspensions• Expulsions• Improved effectiveness for intensive interventions

Increased student engagement• Risk and protective factors improve• Students perceive school as a safer, more supportive

environment

Improved academic performance & Improved family involvement• When coupled with effective instruction


Jan.17, 2013

Field Elementary School

Literacy

44% of students required intensive support for

reading and writing

Social Behavior

10.4 Office

Discipline Referrals per day


Jan.17, 2013

ImpactFrom 10.4 ODR per day

To 1.6 ODR per day



Jan.17, 2013

Literacy Impact• In 2004–05, 44% students required intensive support

for reading and writing. This number shrunk to 31% in 2007–08.

• Shifted to a structured, explicit, research-based core literacy program with three tiers: • One: Benchmark• Two: Strategic Intervention• Three: Intensive Intervention • Monitor progress in fall, winter and spring



Jan.17, 2013

Improved Academic Standing 2007

• 27% of Field’s students scored proficient: up from 5%• African American improved from 0% to 16%• Caucasian improved from 18% to 57%• Students with disabilities improved from 0% to 25%• English Language Learners improved from: 0% to 27%



Jan.17, 2013

Benefits to Faculty and Staff:

• Improved consistency across faculty

• Improved classroom management

• Reduced faculty absenteeism

• Increased faculty retention

• Improved substitute performance/perception

• Increased ratings of faculty “effectiveness”



Jan.17, 2013

Benefits to District/Community• Improved cost effectiveness

• 1 ODR = 15 min staff time; 45 min student time

• Sustained effects across administrator, faculty, staff, student change.• Avoids cost of continually re-creating systems

• Administrative benefits of scale• Cost savings for data systems• Effective transitions among faculty when they shift from one school to another

• Effective innovation• Data systems promote innovation & Focus on research-based practices



Jan.17, 2013

Sustaining and Scaling SWPBS

Investing in the Systems needed to nurture and support effective Practices

• Policies • Staffing FTE (behavioral expertise)• Evaluation Data/Systems• Administrative Priority (over time)• Logical use of initiatives/incentives


Jan.17, 2013

0

750

1500

2250

3000

94-95 96-97 98-99 00-01 02-03 04-05 06-07

Tota

l OD

Rs

Academic Years

Pre

Post

FRMS Total Office Discipline Referrals (Majors) Sustained Impact


Jan.17, 2013

An Effective Implementation Process

• Commitment• Administrator• Faculty• Team

• Team-based processes• Coaches (local Trainers)• Behavioral Expertise• Contextual Fit (Adapt to specific context)• 2-3 Year process


Training Outcomes Related to Training ComponentsTraining Outcomes Related to Training ComponentsTraining Outcomes Related to Training ComponentsTraining Outcomes Related to Training Components

Training OutcomesTraining OutcomesTraining Outcomes

Training Components

Knowledge of Content

Skill Implementation

ClassroomApplication

Presentation/ Lecture

PlusDemonstration

Plus Practice

Plus Coaching/ Admin SupportData Feedback

10% 5% 0%

30% 20% 0%

60% 60% 5%

95% 95% 95%

Joyce & Showers, 2002


Jan.17, 2013

• See PBIS Advisory Committee Binder for more research

• PBIS Research Articles


Sustaining and Scaling SWPBS


Jan.17, 2013

Next Steps

Complete the SWPBIS Implementation & Planning Self-Assessment

--> Take action on:• Funding, Visibility,

Political Support, Policy--> Define:

• Training/Coaching/Evaluation Capacity

--> Support LEA’s, School Districts & School Teams


History of PBIS in Arizona

Presented by Angel Jannasch-Pennell (2013)


• 1999 - Arizona Behavior Initiative (ABI)- funding from ADE/ESS

• 2003 - PBISaz - funding from ADE/ESS/CSPD

• 2012 - PBISaz Advisory Council - funding from the Governors Council and AzDDPC

• 1999-2003 - Arizona Behavior Initiative -funding from ADE/ESS

• 2003-2010 - PBISaz - funding from ADE/ESS/CSPD

• 2012 - PBISaz Advisory Council - funding from the Governors Council and AzDDPC



Jan.17, 2013

• See PBIS Advisory Committee Binder for the schools that were trained in Arizona through ABI and PBISaz

• State Reports


Arizona Developmental Disabilities Planning Council

Presented by Dan Davidson (2013)


Jan.17, 2013

• See PBIS Advisory Committee Binder for more literature on this project

• PBIS-AC


Jan.17, 2013

Task Force Recommendations

http://www.azed.gov/special-education/task-force-best-practices/


Jan.17, 2013

Task Force Recommendations

http://www.azed.gov/special-education/task-force-best-practices/• Prohibit Some Procedures

• Corporal Punishment• Mechanical Restraints• Physical restraints that restrict breathing and communication

• Prohibit Restraint/Seclusion – unless “imminent” danger• Positive School Climate – PBS for all students• Tiered System of Interventions• Train School Staff –

• Proactive Behavior Management• Crisis De-escalation• Non-injurious Crisis Intervention• Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs)• Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs)

• Prevent, Manage, Replace, Monitor challenging behavior• Evidence Based Practices• Irrelevant, Ineffective, Inefficient• Implemented with fidelity

• Report Incidents – Administration, Parents• Data-based Decision Making – to learn from incidents


Jan.17, 2013

Task Force Follow up (2011)https://www.azdes.gov/ADDPC/About/Reports_StatePlans/


Jan.17, 2013

• 98 % of the Arizona school officials surveyed have at least some familiarity with the Task Force recommendations

• 51% have fully adopted recommendations

• 36% in the process of adopting recommendations

• 41% of non-adopters planned to within 12 months

• Most states have policies for statewide PBIS implementation

• All but 18 states have policies re: Seclusion and Restraint

• Most generally supportive and agree with PBIS

• Some fear “unfunded mandate” or “flavor of the month”

• Need more funding and help to implement PBIS at all levels within schools and districts



Jan.17, 2013

Recommendations:

• Resume some of the work of PBISAz

• Convene an Advisory Board to assess and plan for statewide implementation

• Develop and maintain state Leadership Team to oversee implementation

• Seek partnerships within the state

• Develop a network of PBIS coaches

• Consider legislation on seclusion & restraint



Jan.17, 2013

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) striving to improve their school climates and student behavior, and reduce unnecessary and dangerous use of seclusions and restraints, will have access to quality training and technical assistance.

Goals of this Project


Jan.17, 2013

1. Minimum of twelve (12) key PBIS stakeholders will be recruited to serve as advisory council (PBIS-AC) members for six, full-day meetings throughout the year in order to assess, plan, develop policies and leverage resources, that will help LEAs access training, technical assistance in years to come

2. In collaboration with the Arizona Center for Disability Law (ACDL), conduct six separate trainings for 200 parents and LEA personnel in six different areas throughout the state, in order to raise awareness of the issues surrounding seclusion and restraint, the rights of parents and students, and the resources available to help LEAs begin to address these concerns

3. 100% of the members of the PBIS-AC will receive training on what other states with similar circumstances as Arizona have done to build their PBIS capacity and leadership through a national consultant presenting to the PBIS-AC

4. Key PBIS-AC members will attend the national PBIS Technical Assistance Leadership meeting to participate in extended learning and planning sessions with colleagues in other states in order to bring new ideas back to the group

Objectives of this Project - Yr1


Jan.17, 2013

5. The PBIS-AC with the assistance from project personnel will conduct an assessment of Arizona’s strengths and needs, and develop a prioritized action plan for implementing a coordinated approach to supporting LEAs with training, technical assistance and data-based decision making, using the national Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports’ Implementation Blueprint and Self-Assessment

6. A coordinated method for LEAs to obtain approved PBIS training and technical assistance will be developed (including such factors as selection criteria, funding amounts, participation and reporting requirements)

7. A standard method for evaluating LEA implementation will be defined for use with all LEAs who participate in PBIS training and technical assistance, along with the resources needed to make such evaluations possible (e.g., personnel trained to conduct the “School Evaluation Tool” for participating LEAs, the tracking tools LEAs use to record and analyze incidents of seclusion or restraint, the Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion Resource Document)

8. A standard method for evaluating the outcomes of PBIS on students with developmental disabilities (e.g., fewer restraints) will be established for all LEAs who participate in PBIS training and technical assistance, along with the resources needed to record and track the data (e.g., the ADE AzSAFE http://www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/AZSafeImplementManual.asp)



Jan.17, 2013

9. All public and private entities that provide PBIS training and/or technical assistance in Arizona will be informed of the criteria for participation in, and evaluation of, state-approved training and technical assistance, in order to produce a list of participating PBIS resources from which LEAs can choose

10. A minimum of four LEAs from different geographic regions of the state, representing different student demographics, will be recruited to serve as a pilot cohort that will begin receiving training and technical assistance in year 2

11. An independent evaluation of the year 1 process and products will be conducted by the Sonoran Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service (Sonoran Center)

12. A progress report will be submitted to the ADDPC detailing the progress on each of the above objectives, the results of the independent evaluation, and the preparation or revisions to the objectives for year 2



SW-PBIS Implementation Blueprint

Presented by Daniel Gulchak (2013)


Jan.17, 2013

SW-PBIS Implementation


Jan.17, 2013

SW-PBIS Implementation

• See PBIS Advisory Committee Binder for the following planning document:

• SWPBIS Implementation & Self-Assessment Blueprint

• SWPBIS Training & Professional Development Blueprint

• SWPBIS Evaluation Blueprint


Jan.17, 2013

SW-PBIS Implementation & Planning Self-AssessmentSWPBIS&Implementation&Blueprint,&version&September&25,&2010&

© 2009, 2002 Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, University of Oregon.

&SWPBS%Implementation%Self1Assessment%and%Planning%Tool%

%

Implementation%Feature& In%Place%Status%Yes& Partial& No&

Leadership%Team%

1.&Capacity&to&address&multiCschool&(district)&and/or&multiC&district&(region,%state)&leadership&and&coordination.&

& & &

&&&2.&Leadership&Team&with&representation%from&appropriate&range&of&stakeholders&(e.g.,&special&education,&general&education,&families,&mental&health,&administration,&higher&education,&professional&development,&evaluation&&&accountability).&

& & &

&&&3.&Completion&of&SWPBS&Implementation%Blueprint%self1%assessment%at&least&annually.&

& & &

&&&4.&315%year%prevention1based%action%plan%that&delineates&actions&linked&to&each&feature&of&the&Implementation&Blueprint.&

& & &

&&&5.&Regular%meeting%schedule%(at&least&quarterly)&&&meeting&process&(agenda,&minutes,&dissemination).&

& & &

&&&6.&Individual(s)&who&have&adequate&&&designated&time&to&manage&day1to1day%operations.&

& & &

&&&7.&Individual(s)&who&put&policy%&%action% & & &

SWPBIS&Implementation&Blueprint,&version&September&25,&2010&


planning%into%practice.&&&&8.&Individual(s)&who&inform%leadership%team%on&implementation&outcomes.&

& & &

&&&9.&Implementation&authority&from&organizational&leadership.&

& & &

&&&

Funding%

10.Recurring/stable%state%funding%sources&to&support&operating&structures&&&capacity&activities&for&at&least&three&years.&

& & &

&&&11.Assessment&&&integration&of&funding%&%organizational%resources%across&related&initiatives.&

& & &

&&&

Visibility%

12.Dissemination%strategies%to&ensure&that&stakeholders&are&informed&about&activities&&&accomplishments&(e.g.,&website,&newsletter,&conferences,&TV).&

& & &

&&&13.Procedures&for&quarterly&&&public&acknowledgement%of&implementation&activities&that&meet&criteria.&

& & &

&&&

Political%

Support%

14.Student&social%behavior%is&one&of&the&top&three&to&five&goals&for&the&political&unit&(state,&district,&region).&

& & &

&&&


Jan.17, 2013



&15.Leadership&Team&reports%to&the&political&unit&at&least&annually&on&the&activities&&&outcomes&related&to&student&behavior&goal&&&SWPBS&implementation.&

& & &

&&&16.Participation&&&support%by%administrator%from&state&chief&or&equivalent&administrator&are&agreed&upon&&&secured.&

& & &

&&&

Policy%

17.Endorsed&SWPBS&policy%statement.& & & &&&&18.Written%procedural%guidelines%&%working%agreements%for&guiding&implementation&decisionCmaking.&

& & &

&&&19.SemiCannual&review&of&implementation%data%&%outcomes%to&refine&policy.&

& & &

&&&20.Annual&audit&of&effectiveness,&relevance,&&&implementation&integrity&of&existing%related%(similar&outcomes)&initiatives,&programs,&etc.&to&refine&policy.&

& & &

&&&21.Action%plan%for%integrated%and/or%collaborative%implementation%of&SWPBS&with&other&initiatives&having&similar&outcomes&and&goals.&

& & &

&&&&



Training%Capacity%

22.Priority&for&identification&&&adoption&of&

evidence1based%training%curriculum%&%professional%development%practices.&

& & &

&

&

&

23.Plan&for&local%training%capacity%to&build&&&sustain&SWPBS&practices.&

& & &

&

&

&

24.Plan&for&continuous%regeneration%&&updating&of&training&capacity.&

& & &

&

&

&

Coaching%Capacity%

25.Coaching%network%that&establishes&&&sustains&SWPBS.&

& & &

&

&

&

26.Individuals%for&coaching&&&facilitation&supports&at&least&monthly&with&each&

emerging&school&teams&(in&training&&&not&at&

implementation&criteria),&&&at&least&quarterly&

with&established&teams.&

&

& & &

&

&

&

27.Coaching%functions%for&internal&(school&level)&&&external&(district/regional&level)&

coaching&supports.&

& & &

&

&

&

Evaluation%

Capacity%

28.An&evaluation%process%&&schedule&for&assessing&(a)&extent&to&which&teams&are&using&

SWPBS,&(b)&impact&of&SWPBS&on&student&

outcomes,&&&(c)&extent&to&which&the&

& & &

&

&

&

29.SchoolCbased&data&information%systems%(e.g.,&data&collection&tools&&&evaluation&

& & &


Jan.17, 2013



processes).&&&&30.District&&/or&state&level&procedures&&&supports&for&system%level%evaluation.&

& & &

&&&31.Dissemination&of&annual%report%of&implementation&integrity&&&outcomes.&

& & &

&&&32.At&least&quarterly%dissemination,%celebration,%and%acknowledgement%of&outcomes&and&accomplishments.&

& & &

&&&

Behavioral%Expertise%

33.At&least&two%individuals%on%leadership%team%have&behavioral&expertise&and&experience&to&ensure&implementation&integrity&of&SWPBS&practices&and&systems&at&three&capacity&levels:&(a)&training,&(b)&coaching,&and&(c)&evaluation.&

& & &

&&&34.Individuals&with&behavioral&expertise&have&SWPBS%content%competence.&

& & &

&&&35.The&interaction&and&relationship&between&effective%academic%instruction%and&school1wide%behavior%support%are&visible&and&promoted.&

& & &

&&&36.SWPBS&behavioral&expertise&includes&fluency&with&the&process%and%organizational%strategies%that&support&and&enhance&the&use&of&evidenceCbased&

& & &



&

behavioral&practices.&&&&

School/District%

Dem

onstrations%

37.&At&least&10&local%school%demonstrations%of&SWPBS&process&&&outcomes.&

& & &

&&&38.Establishment&of&at&least&2&districts/regional&demonstrations&of&system1level%leadership%teams%to&coordinate&SWPBS&implementation&in&25%&(3&schools)&or&more&of&their&schools.&

& & &

&&&


Next Meeting

Presented by Daniel Gulchak (2013)


Jan.17, 2013

Next Meeting

• Dates, Times Location

• Advisory Committee Membership

• Conference Opportunities

• Review Action Items


Jan.17, 2013

PBIS-AC February 27, 2013

Dr. Robert Horner, OSEP Technical Assistance Center on PBIS

• Consider additional focus on the “systems” variables. • We have just completed two data reviews looking at:

• (a) factors that affected scaling of SWPBIS, (b) factors that affected sustainability of implementation, and (c) funding of SWPBIS.

• The short message from these efforts is that scaling was always linked to: (1) building local training, coaching and evaluation capacity, coupled with (2) evaluation systems that documented both high fidelity and student outcomes.

• Consider especially how you will build coaching capacity for schools adopting SWPBIS. District or regional coaches turn out to be the backbone of high fidelity and sustained implementation. When you have Data + Coaches… things work. The main theme is that training alone is insufficient to get implementation of SWPBIS.


Thank You for Participating

www.PBISaz.org


Documents

January 17, 2013 Initial Meeting of Statewide Advisory Councilpbisaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013-01-17-PBIS-AC-Intro.pdf · Created by Rob Horner & Celeste Rossetto Dickey,