State and District-level Role in Implementation, Scaling and Sustaining PBIS Session A-3 State and District Role in Implementation, Scaling and Sustaining PBIS Rob Horner University of Oregon

Assumptions and Goals Assumption: o Experience supporting implementation of PBIS Goals o National context Michigan (Shift from compliance to outcome) 600+ schools implementing PBIS o Four core “functions” of coaching o Importance of building district “capacity” to implement and sustain multi-tiered systems of support

Why PBIS? The fundamental purpose of PBIS is to make schools more effective, efficient and equitable learning environments. Predictable Consistent Positive Safe

PBIS works: Experimental Research Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). The impact of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, Bradshaw, C.P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K.B., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, Bradshaw, C., Waasdorp, T., Leaf. P., (in press). Effects of School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems and adjustment. Pediatrics. Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J., (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), Ross, S. W., Endrulat, N. R., & Horner, R. H. (2012). Adult outcomes of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. 14(2) Waasdorp, T., Bradshaw, C., & Leaf, P., (2012) The Impact of Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Bullying and Peer Rejection: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial. Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. 2012;166(2): Bradshaw, Pas, Goldweber, Rosenberg, & Leaf, 2012 Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., McCoach D.B., Sugai, G., Lombardi, A., & Horner, ( submitted) Implementation Effects of School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports on Academic, Attendance, and Behavior Outcomes in High Schools. PBIS is Experimentally Related to: 1.Reduction in problem behavior 2.Increased academic performance 3.Increased attendance 4.Improved perception of safety 5.Reduction in bullying behaviors 6.Improved organizational efficiency 7.Reduction in staff turnover 8.Increased perception of teacher efficacy 9.Improved Social Emotional competence

Implementing PBIS Student is the unit of impact School is the unit of intervention District is the unit of implementation State is the unit of coordination

Compression Implementation Grassroots Demand Policy Incentive Expectation Large Scale, High Fidelity, Sustained Implementation Technical Assistance Capacity Large Scale, High Fidelity, Sustained Implementation Network of Trainers Fidelity Measure Coaching Network Outcome Measures Alignment Protocols Defined roles at all levels of system

Leadership Team Funding Visibility Political Support TrainingCoachingEvaluation Local School Demonstrations Active Coordination Technical Expertise Policy

Building Capacity for Sustained Implementation Use PBIS Implementation Blueprint o Leadership Team o Demonstrations o Establishing capacity for sustainable implementation Use Implementation Science o Selecting effective practices o Building teams o Honoring stages of implementation o Building the “drivers” that are needed for high fidelity and sustainability o Using the decision-cycles needed for scaling and improvement

Implementation Science Frameworks WHO Teams WHEN Stages HOW Drivers HOW Cycles WHAT Interventions

© Fixsen & Blase, 2008 Performance Assessment (Fidelity) Coaching Training Selection Systems Intervention Facilitative Administration Decision Support Data System Implementation Drivers Competency Drivers Organization Drivers Leadership AdaptiveTechnical Successful Student Outcomes Program/Initiative/Framework (e.g. RtI)

Schools using PBIS August, ,611

Number of Schools Implementation SWPBIS (Tier I) by State August, States with more than 500 schools Michigan

Proportion of Schools Implementing SWPBIS by State August, States with more than 40% of schools Michigan

Total number of schools using SWPBIS Total number of schools measuring fidelity Schools at Tier I fidelity Number of PBIS schools (Green) Implementing, (Red) measuring fidelity and (Blue) at Tier I fidelity by state >75% Connecticut Iowa Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Missouri Oregon South Carolina Vermont >1000 schools Florida Illinois North Carolina Wisconsin

Time in Years Early Later Percentage of Schools Implementing 0% Model Demonstrations Replications 10% 50% 80% Steve Goodman

Scaling up School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: The Experiences of Seven States with Documented Success Rob Horner, Don Kincaid, George Sugai, Tim Lewis, Lucille Eber, Susan Barrett, Celeste Rossetto Dickey, Mary Richter, Erin Sullivan, Cyndi Boezio, Nancy Johnson, (2014 ), JPBI ExplorationInstallationInitial ImpFull Imp Leadership Team Funding Visibility Political Support Policy Training Coaching Expertise Evaluation Demos Interviews and Data Reviews with the PBIS implementers from Seven States that had at least 500 schools using PBIS.

Exploration and Adoption InstallationInitial Implementation Full Implementation Innovation and sustainability Leadership Team (coordination) Do you have a state leadership team? If you do, how was your first leadership team developed? Who were members? Who supported/lead the team through the exploration process? Was any sort of self- assessment completed (e.g. the PBIS Implementation Blueprint Assessment)? What was the role of State agency personnel in the exploration phase? What were critical issues that confronted the team as it began to install systems changes? What were specific activities the team did to ensure success of the initial implementation efforts? Did the team change personnel or functioning as the # of schools/districts increased? What has the Leadership team done to insure sustainability? In what areas is the State “innovating” and contributing to the research and practice of PBIS (e.g. linking PBIS with literacy or math)?

Descriptive Summary: Oregon Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /Full Imp & Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Missouri Exploration / Installation /Initial Imp / Full Imp & Innovate

Descriptive Summary: North Carolina Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Colorado Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Florida Exploration/ Installation/ Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Maryland Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate

Descriptive Summary: Illinois Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /Full Imp & Innovate

Lessons Learned: Moving from 10% to 40% Multiple approaches to achieving scaled implementation Colorado: Started with Leadership Team Illinois: Started with Leadership Advocates and built team only after implementation expanded. Missouri: Strong initial demonstrations led to strong state support All states began with small “demonstrations ” that documented the feasibility and impact of SWPBIS. Only when states reached demonstrations did scaling occur. Four core features needed for scaling: Administrative Leadership / Support/ Funding Technical capacity (Local training, coaching, evaluation and behavioral expertise) Local Demonstrations of feasibility and impact ( ) Evaluation data system (to support continuous improvement) Essential role of Data : Fidelity data AND Outcome data

Time in Years Early Later Percentage of Schools Implementing 0% Predicted Trajectory based on theory of critical mass Model Demonstrations Replications Too often, actual results 10% 50% 80% Steve Goodman

No “Tipping Point” 0-10%: Start with Demonstrations o Document feasibility and impact 10-40%: Build capacity to improve efficiency o Improve speed and cost to implement PBIS o Local trainers, coaches o Expand range of valued outcomes 40%-80%: Scale to Level of Systems Change o Adequate technical assistance capacity o Alignment strategy o Formal presence within decision-making at state level o Emphasis on systems (school, district, region, state) o Data, data, data, data

Moving from 40% to 80% Formal System for Initiative Selection and Alignment Implement with Depth o Tier I through “classroom” o Establish data systems (BOTH data collection and data use) o Tiers II and III o Greater attention to PBIS Systems Embed and Adapt (with consistent core) o Presence at decision points (which are not always well defined) o Make PBIS relevant to current target areas o Support new strategies to achieve PBIS core features. NOTE: The keys to effective adaptation are regular measurement of fidelity and sustained political relevance

Districts: Link Academic and Behavior Supports Progress Monitoring o 11. Collection of data o 12. Use of data for decision-making Fidelity Monitoring o 13. Collection of fidelity data o 14. Use of fidelity data for decision- making. Effective and Efficient Tier I o 1. Evidence-based curriculum o 2. Unambiguous instruction o 3. Adequate intensity o 4. System for positive feedback o 5. System for timely error correction. Universal Screening o 6. Collect US 2-4 times per year o 7. Use data for early intervention Evidence-based Tier II, Tier III o 8. Targeted supports ( Tier II) o 9. Intensive support (Tier III) o 10. Timely intervention support Amanda Sarah

Districts District Implementation Team o Right People (5-10) o Adequate authority (schedule, funds, personnel, policy) o Meeting schedule (monthly) o Adequate coordination support o Measures of impact Coherent District Policy o Social behavior is a priority in district improvement plan (e.g. LCAP) o District commitment to selecting practices that are evidence-based o District process for aligning multiple initiatives.

Districts: Organizational Systems Evaluation Capacity o Data systems that inform decision-making and provide policy feedback ** Fidelity and Impact Recruitment, Hiring, Evaluation o “Preference will be given to individuals with knowledge and experience in implementation of multi-tiered academic and behavior supports.”

Districts Annual Faculty/Staff Orientation o Defines PBIS as a priority o Defines what to expect in a school using PBIS. o min of annual orientation Professional Development (Training) o PD is always tied to core improvement goals o PD typically involves distributed training (multiple events) o PD is always linked to on-site coaching. o PD is always linked to fidelity measure Coaching HOW Drivers

Districts Annual staff evaluations o Demonstrated effectiveness implementing multi-tiered academic and behavior supports. Development of personnel with Tier II and Tier III expertise o Identification and assessment o Data-based decision-making o Team leadership in support plan development o Training and coaching expertise for team implementation o Collaboration at student, classroom, building and district levels HOW Cycles

There is no tipping point in education... From Justyn Poulos

Summary PBIS is a major component of effective education Districts are the unit of implementation for PBIS Delivering sustained and scalable PBIS will require greater attention to: o Building local technical assistance capacity (train, coach, eval, expertise) o Evaluation of fidelity as well as impact o Linking PBIS with mental health and justice outcomes o Building the state-level capacity to align, embed, adapt while retaining core features. Questions, Comments, Insights