Upload
greg
View
43
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
SWPBS (aka EBS) 10 Year Perspective. George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS University of Oregon Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut March 11, 2008 www.pbis.org www.cber.org [email protected]. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
SWPBS (aka EBS)10 Year Perspective
George SugaiOSEP Center on PBIS
University of Oregon
Center for Behavioral Education & Research
University of Connecticut
March 11, 2008
www.pbis.org www.cber.org
PURPOSE: Acknowledge what we have learned over last 10 years
• Where did SWPBS come from?
• Has triangle been useful?
• What about academic achievement?
• Is SWPBS program or system?
• What about next 10 years?
World Events for 1997• Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess rematch
• Hong Kong reverts to China after 156 years as British Colony
• Space station 'Mir' experiences life threatening malfunctions & accidents
• 1st Harry Potter book published
• Clinton US president of US & Chretien Canadian prime minister
• Seinfeld, Men in Black, Candle in the Wind (E. John)
• Millions commemorate 20th anniversary of Elvis' death
• Princess Diana killed in Paris car crash
• 3 high school students killed in Paducah KY
• Iowa woman gives birth to septuplets; all survive
• Adult sheep named Dolly successfully cloned in Scotland
• Center on PBIS awarded to university collaborative
Where did SWPBS come
from?
Before1997
• No such thing as www
• No such thing as PBIS Center
• “Pre-PowerPoint”…transparencies
• Concern about school climate & problem behavior
• EBS “Effective Behavior Support”
1985
2008
EvolutionSchool-wide Positive
Behavior Support
1986Bohemia
Elementary (1) 1988Project
PREPARE (4)1994
Effective BehaviorSupport Project (6)1996Fern Ridge
Middle
1998OSEP TA
PBIS Center(~15/~1000)
2001OR Behavior
Research Center
2003OSEP TA
PBIS-2 Center(~40/~6600)
2007 USF Scaling Up
Center
2008OR PBS &PBIS-III?
Fern Ridge Middle School
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sep Nov Jan Mar May
Months
Office Referrals/School Day by Month1994-1995, 1995-1996
Taylor-Greene et al., 1996
Circa 1996
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06
To
tal O
DR
s
Academic Years
FRMS Total Office Discipline Referrals
Pre
Post
SWPBS Conceptual Foundations
Behaviorism
ABA
EBS/PBS
SWPBS
PBIS objective….Redesign & support teaching & learning environments that are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable– Outcome-based
– Data-guided decision making
– Evidence-based practices
– Systems support for accurate & sustained implementation
Has “triangle” been useful?
Specialized Individual Interventions(Individual StudentSystem)
Continuum of Effective BehaviorSupport
Specialized GroupInterventions(At-Risk System)
Universal Interventions (School-Wide SystemClassroom System)
Studentswithout SeriousProblemBehaviors (80 -90%)
Students At-Risk for Problem Behavior(5-15%)
Students withChronic/IntenseProblem Behavior(1 - 7%)
Primary Prevention
Secondary Prevention
Tertiary Prevention
All Students in SchoolCirca 1996
Original logic: public health & disease prevention (Larson, 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
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
“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 those % come from?
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mea
n P
ropo
rtio
n of
S
tude
nts
Met SET (N = 23) Not Met SET (N =12)
Central Illinois Elem, Middle SchoolsTriangle Summary 03-04
6+ ODR
2-5 ODR
0-1 ODR
84% 58%
11%
22%
05%20%
SWPBS schools are more preventive
SWIS 06-07 (Majors Only)1974 schools; 1,025,422 students; 948,874 ODRs
Grades # Sch Mean Enroll
Mean ODRs/100/Day
K-6 1288 446 .34 (.37)1/300/day
6-9 377 658 .98 (1.36)1/100/day
9-12 124 1009 .93 (.83)1/107/day
K-(8-12) 183 419 .86 (1.14)1/120/day
Rule violations happen
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)
0-1 '2-5 '6+
3%8%
89%
10%
16%
74%
11%
18%
71%
K=6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)
Mean Proportion of Students
ODR rates vary by level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)Percentage of ODRs by Student Group
'0-1 '2-5 '6+
K-6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)
32%
43%
25%
48%
37%
15%
45%
40%
15%
A few kids get many ODRs
Bethel School District ODR's by Grade Level
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grade Level
Num
ber o
f OD
R's 2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
ODR rates vary by grade
What about academic
achievement?
It’s not just about behavior!
Good Teaching Behavior Management
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity
Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems
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
Circa 1996
RtI
RtI: Good “IDEiA” PolicyApproach or framework for redesigning
& establishing teaching & learning environments that are effective,
efficient, relevant, & durable for all students, families & educators
• NOT program, curriculum, strategy, intervention
• NOT limited to special education
• NOT new
Quotable Fixsen • “Policy is
– Allocation of limited resources for unlimited needs”
– Opportunity, not guarantee, for good action”
• “Training does not predict action”
– “Manualized treatments have created overly rigid & rapid applications”
RtI Application Examples
EARLY READING/LITERACY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
TEAMGeneral educator, special
educator, reading specialist, Title I, school psychologist, etc.
General educator, special educator, behavior specialist, Title I, school
psychologist, etc.
UNIVERSAL SCREENING
Curriculum based measurement SSBD, record review, gating
PROGRESS MONITORING
Curriculum based measurementODR, suspensions, behavior incidents, precision teaching
EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS
5-specific reading skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension
Direct social skills instruction, positive reinforcement, token economy, active supervision, behavioral contracting,
group contingency management, function-based support, self-
management
DECISION MAKING RULES
Core, strategic, intensive Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers
Responsiveness to Intervention
Academic+
Social Behavior
All
Some
FewRTI
Continuum of Support for
ALL
Dec 7, 2007
RCT etc.Algozzine et al., Horner et al., Leaf et al.,
• Improvements in school climate
– Decreases in ODR
– Improvements in perceived school safety
• Improvements in achievement
– Standardized achievement tests
• High levels of implementation fidelity
Is SWPBS Program or
System?
SYSTEMS
PRACTICES
DATA
SupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingDecisionMaking
SupportingStudent Behavior
Positive Behavior Support
Circa 1996
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingStudent Behavior
OUTCOMES
Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement
SupportingDecisionMaking
Basics: 4 PBS
Elements
Agreements
Team
Data-based Action Plan
ImplementationEvaluation
GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS: “Getting Started”
Sample Implementation “Map”• 2+ years of school team training
• Annual “booster” events
• Coaching/facilitator support @ school & district levels
• Regular self-assessment & evaluation data
• On-going preparation of trainers
• Development of local/district leadership teams
• Establishment of state/regional leadership & policy team
Organization of behavioral subsystems
School-Wide
Non-Classroom
Individual Student
Classroom
Circa 1996
Classroom
SWPBSSubsystems
Non-classroomFamily
Student
School-w
ide
What does SWPBSlook like?
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
School-wide
Reinforcement Wisdom!
• “Knowing” or saying “know” does NOT mean “will do”
• Students “do more” when “doing works”…appropriate & inappropriate!
• Natural consequences are varied, unpredictable, undependable,…not always preventive
• Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged
• Active supervision by all staff– Scan, move, interact
• Precorrections & reminders
• Positive reinforcement
Non-classroom
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Date
Baseline Pre-Correction Intervention
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
3/1
4/ 9
5
3/2
8/ 9
5
3/2
9/ 9
5
4/3
/ 95
4/4
/ 95
4/7
/ 95
4/1
0/ 9
5
4/1
7/ 9
5
4/1
8/ 9
5
4/2
6/ 9
5
4/2
7/ 9
5
4/2
9/ 9
5
5/1
/ 95
5/2
/ 95
5/3
/ 95
5/4
/ 95
5/9
/ 95
5/1
0/ 9
5
5/1
2/ 9
5
5/1
5/ 9
5
5/1
6/ 9
5
5/1
7/ 9
5
5/1
8/ 9
5
5/2
3/ 9
5
5/2
4/ 9
5
5/2
5/ 9
5
5/2
6/ 9
5
5/3
0/ 9
5
5/3
1/ 9
5
6/1
/ 95
6/2
/ 95
6/5
/ 95
6/6
/ 95
6/8
/ 95
6/9
/ 95
6/1
2/ 9
5
6/1
3/ 9
50
10
20
30
40
50
60
Entering Cafeteria
Entering School
Exiting School
Problem BehaviorsStaff Interactions
• 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
Classroom
Romanowich, Bourett, & Volmer, 2007
• 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
Individual Student
% Intervals w/ P.B. for Bryce
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Sessions**Data points with arrows indicate no medication
% I
nte
rva
ls w
/ P
.B.
Baseline
Contra-IndicatedIndicatedContra-
IndicatedIndicated
% Intervals w/ P.B. for Carter
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Sessions
% In
terv
als
w/ P
.B.
Baseline IndicatedIndicated Indicated Modified
Contra-ndicated
Contra-Indicated
• Continuum of positive behavior support for all families
• Frequent, regular positive contacts, communications, & acknowledgements
• Formal & active participation & involvement as equal partner
• Access to system of integrated school & community resources
Family
~80% of Students
~15%
~5%
CONTINUUM of SWPBS
SECONDARY PREVENTION• Check in/out• Targeted social skills instruction• Peer-based supports• Social skills club•
TERTIARY PREVENTION• Function-based support• Wraparound/PCP• Special Education• •
PRIMARY PREVENTION• Teach & encourage positive SW expectations• Proactive SW discipline• Effective instruction• Parent engagement•
Audit
1.Identify existing practices by tier
2.Specify outcome for each effort
3.Evaluate implementation accuracy & outcome effectiveness
4.Eliminate/integrate based on outcomes
5.Establish decision rules (RtI)
What about next 10 years?
How do we…..• Increase adoption of effective
behavioral instructional technologies in classrooms & schools?
• Ensure high fidelity of implementation of these technologies?
• Increase efficient, sustained & scaled implementation of these technologies?
• Increase accurate, efficient, & durable institutionalized use of these technologies?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 BL CI/CO
CI/CO +75%
CI/CO +80%
CI/CO +90%
Helena
School Days
Per
cen
t of
Int
erva
ls E
nga
ged
in P
robl
em
B
ehav
ior
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jade
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Farrell
Began meds.
Class B Results
Fairbanks,Sugai, Gardino,& Lathrop, 2007.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ben
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Marcellus
BL CI/CO
CI/CO75%
CI/CO80%
FB plan
FB plan 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Blair
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Olivia
Per
cen
t of
Int
erva
ls E
nga
ged
in P
robl
em
Beh
avi
or
Study 2 Results
School Days
Leadership Team
Active Coordination
Funding Visibility PoliticalSupport
Training Coaching Evaluation
Local School Teams/Demonstrations
PBS Systems Implementation Logic
ValuedOutcomes
ContinuousSelf-Assessment
Practice Implementation
EffectivePractices
Relevance
Priority Efficacy
Fidelity
SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION & DURABLE RESULTS THROUGH CONTINUOUS REGENERATION
Questions• Pre-service preparation & induction process
• Educator expectations, learning histories, outcomes, & reinforcers
• Administrative leadership
• Collaborative inter-agency interactions
• Values, culture, context, learning histories, & reinforcers of organization
• Policy guidance & accountability
• Research & development – Urban ghettos, rural isolation, high schools, mental
health, etc., etc.
Also on Horizon: NCLB-II