DIRECTORS OF STUDENT SERVICES OCEAN CITY RETREAT JANUARY 22 AND 23, 2009 PBIS IN 2009 Presented by Andrea Alexander, Milton McKenna, Jerry Bloom and Catherine Bradshaw

Advanced Organizer PBIS Initiative Status Update on 7-304: PBIS and the Law State Leadership Team Activity: - Recognition Subcommittee - Training Subcommittee Update on Collaborative Research Activities What’s Next?

Academic SystemsBehavioral Systems 1-5% 5-10% 80-90% Intensive, Individually Designed Interventions Address individual needs of student Assessment-based High Intensity Intensive, Individually Designed Interventions Strategies to address needs of individual students with intensive needs Function-based assessments Intense, durable strategies Targeted, Group Interventions Small, needs-based groups for at risk students who do not respond to universal strategies High efficiency Rapid response Targeted, Group Interventions Small, needs-based groups for at- risk students who do not respond to universal strategies High efficiency/ Rapid response Function-based logic Core Curriculum and Differentiated Instruction All students Preventive, proactive School-wide or classroom systems for ALL students Core Curriculum and Universal Interventions All settings, all students Preventive, proactive School-wide or classroom systems for ALL students and staff Maryland’s Tiered Instructional and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Framework

School Mental Health Student Services Social Emotional Learning Curriculum Truancy Reduction Strategies Suspension Reduction Strategies Special Education Assessment and Referral Bullying Reduction Strategies Maryland’s Tiered Instructional and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Framework

PBIS Model: Whole-school Prevention Application of behavioral, social learning, & organizational behavioral principles – Clear behavioral expectations – Procedures for managing disruptions – Positive rewards Public health approach (universal / selective / indicated) – Requires a shift from punitive to preventive Focus on changing adult behavior – Team-based & data-based process – Emphasizes staff buy-in Can be implemented in any school level, type, or setting – Non-curricular model – flexible to fit school context Coaching to ensure high fidelity implementation (Horner & Sugai, 2001; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai & Horner, 2006)

Maryland’s PBIS Infrastructure State District School Classroom Student School Level 584 PBIS Teams (one per school) Team leaders (one per school) Behavior Support Coaches (380+) District Level (24) Regional Coordinators State Level State Leadership Team Maryland State Department of Education Sheppard Pratt Health System Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention of Youth Violence 24 Local school districts University of Maryland Department of Juvenile Services Mental Hygiene Administration Management Team Partnership Group National Level National PBIS Technical Assistance Center University of Oregon University of Connecticut University of Missouri

PBIS in Maryland Schools 334 Elementary; 14 Elementary/Middle; 177 Middle; 81 High Schools; 44 Other

Where Are We In 2008?

7500 Schools across 44 states implementing school-wide positive behavior support

Leadership Team Funding VisibilityPolitical Support TrainingCoaching Evaluation Active Coordination Local School Teams/Demonstrations PBIS Systems Implementation Logic

Core Support Program: Provided to all, intended to reach most Continuum of Supports The required resources to address the problem increases The need to enhance environmental structures increases The frequency for collecting and acting upon information increases

Opportunities to Increase Visibility The Delinquency Prevention and Diversion Services Task Force School Safety Action Planning Committee-Twice International School Mental Health Conference Blueprint for Mental Health’s Emotional Disturbance Workgroup Child Welfare Training Academy Youth Investment Project Advocates for Children and Youth Meeting Pupil Personnel State meeting Charles County Pupil Personnel Workers and Guidance/School Counselors Meeting APBS/PBIS Implementers Forums Federal Legislation/2008 and anticipated in 2009 Montgomery County School visit in Montgomery County

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request School Safety Solutions in Maryland $928, 522 Further Youth Engagement Need for a Teacher’s Summit Community Forums Competitive Grants for School Resource Officers Expanded Training in PBIS 2 additional staff specifically trained to offer statewide training to school systems and schools in de- escalation and classroom management 1 support staff position

PBIS and the LAW : Schools To Be Identified in School Year 2008/ Elementary schools with suspension rates exceeding 12%; 2.Elementary schools already implementing PBIS with suspension rates exceeding 12%; and, 3.Any school with a truancy rate exceeding 8%; 4.Any school already implementing PBIS with a truancy rate exceeding 8%.

Defining Truancy The source for truancy data is the report entitled Habitual Truants, Maryland Public Schools, : A student is considered a habitual truant if he or she meets ALL of the following criteria: the student was age 5 through 20 during the school year; the student was in membership in a school for 91 or more days; and the student was unlawfully absent for 20% or more of the days in membership.

7500 Schools across 44 states implementing school-wide positive behavior support--2007

Increased Visibility of PBIS in MD and Nationally Number of PBIS Schools – 650 in MD (46%) – Over 7,500 in US 44 states have coordinated PBIS effort – Several other countries (Australia, Norway, Canada) Maryland Legislation – House Bill 1288 (2004) Required elementary schools (K-5) with high suspension rates (12%) to implement PBIS – Truancy Bill (2008) Requires any public school with high truancy rate to implement PBIS Federal Legislation – NCLB & IDEA

Recognition 2009 Feedback from Local Systems Pulled group together Developed new application with all local input New awards will be Gold Silver and Bronze Application at

Training Subcommittee Hard working group Discussed fiscal realities for New and Returning team events Looking at methods for providing some formal training in Check in/Check out/BEP for one or two systems who have enough local capacity to support schools who are implementing

Dates to Remember EVENTLOCATIONDATE(S) SWIS Facilitator TrainingLoyola College Timonium, Maryland March 3 -5, 2009 APBSHyatt Jacksonville Jacksonville, Florida March , 2009 Leadership SummitTurf Valley Howard County March 30, 2009 Coaches’ MeetingTurf Valley Howard County April 21, 2009 Western Region Retuning Team: Allegany, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Washington South Hagerstown HS Washington County June 24, 2009 Central 2 Returning Team Training: Anne Arundel, Howard, Montgomery, Prince Georges Old Mill Complex Anne Arundel County July 14, 2009 July 15, 2009 for some LSS’s Coaches TrainingTurf Valley Howard County July 20, 2009 New Team Training: SecondaryTurf Valley Howard County July , 2009 New Team Training: ElementaryTurf Valley Howard County July 23 – 24, 2009 Southern Region Returning Team: Calvert, Charles, St. Mary’s North Point HS Charles County July 29 – 30, 2009

Catherine P. Bradshaw, PhD Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence In Collaboration with the PBIS Maryland Management Team (MSDE, SPHS, & JHU) PBIS Maryland Initiative funded by MSDE & SPHS; Research supported by NIMH (1R01MH A) & CDC (1U49CE and K01CE ) Update on Collaborative Research Efforts Related to PBIS

Group Randomized Trial of SWPBIS: Project Target Funding  Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC; Leaf, PI)  National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; Leaf, PI) Sample 37 voluntary elementary schools across 5 MD school districts – Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore Co., Charles, & Washington – Enrollment ; 60% Caucasian; 48% suburban; 41% urban fringe; 49% Title I Design Group randomized effectiveness trial – 21 PBIS & 16 “Focus/Comparison” Baseline plus 4 years (spring spring 2007) – Data from 29,423 students & 3,563 staff Project Target

SET: PBIS Implementation Fidelity Notes. No significant differences between groups at baseline, but differences at all other years at p<.05. Overall SET score: Wilks’ Λ =.38, F (4,32) = 13.36, p <.001, partial η2 =.63, d = Significant improvement among PBIS schools

Organizational Health Inventory (OHI) OHI: 37 item staff-report measure of 5 aspects of a healthy functioning school (Hoy et al., 1991) – academic emphasis - students are cooperative in the classroom – staff affiliation - warm and friendly interactions, commitment, trust – collegial leadership - principal’s behavior is friendly, supportive, open – resource influence - principal’s ability to lobby for resources for school – institutional integrity - protected from unreasonable community demands – overall OHI score (average of 5 subscales)

Effect of PBIS on Overall OHI Note. Adjusted means from 3-level model. * Intervention effect on slope of overall OHI significant at p<.05. (Bradshaw et al., 2008; SPQ) * Sig. difference (.05)

Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) Note. Wilks’ Λ =.67, F[1,14] = 6.99, p =.019, η2 =.33, d =.07, adjusting for school system, % FARMS, and school enrollment. (Bradshaw et al., in press, JPBI) Significant reduction among PBIS schools

Teacher-Reported Office Discipline Referrals (ODR): Comparing PBIS and Focus Across All Study Years Students in PBIS schools were 35% less likely than students in Focus schools to receive an ODR – Boys were 29% less likely to receive an ODR – Girls were 45% less likely to receive an ODR Effects were strongest for students who first received PBIS in Kindergarten or 1 st grade Note. Based on teacher report. Estimates varied by generation (i.e., the grade the children were in during the first year of the Project Target), p<.05. Analyses adjust for school level covariates.

Suspension Rate (school-level duplicated counts) Note. Wilcoxon test: (PBIS) Z = -2.17, p =.03, d =. 27. ; (Comparison) Z = -1.54, p =.12 Significant reduction among PBIS schools only

Teacher-reported Need & Use of Services: Comparing PBIS and Focus across All Study Years Generation K students in PBIS schools were 39% less to receive counseling for inappropriate behavior – Generation K girls in PBIS schools were 45% less likely Generation K students (overall and boys and girls) were 33% less likely to need counseling for social skills – Generation K boys in PBIS schools were 35% less likely There were no significant differences in special education service referral or use – Referral: 14.9% in PBIS vs. 15.4% in Focus schools – Use: 12.8% in PBIS vs. 12.7% in Focus schools Note. Based on teacher report. Generation indicates the grade the child was in during the first year of the Project Target, p<.05. Analyses adjust for school level covariates.

Achievement Data: Cumulative Gains in MSA Advanced and Proficient Across All Available Years Note. †Grade 5 math: t = -1.67, df = 35, p =.105, d =.54 †

Summary of Randomized Trial Findings High fidelity implementation of PBIS – Comparison schools adopted some aspects of PBIS PBIS training associated with increase in school’s organizational health – Especially those starting at a slightly lower level Impact on students – Reductions in office discipline referrals Boys in PBIS schools were 31-56% less likely to receive an ODR Girls in PBIS schools were 62-63% less likely to receive an ODR – Reductions in school-level suspensions – Reduced need for counseling – Positive trend in MSA achievement Project Target (Bradshaw et al., Prevention Science, School Psychology Quarterly, JPBI)

Current & Future Research Directions Grants – “Variations Grant” to U.S. DOE (IES) Link Project Target and MSDE data to examine student-level achievement, attendance etc. Determine needs of students not responding adequately to PBIS – Center for Prevention and Early Intervention (NIMH, N. Ialongo) – BCPSS PATHS & Good Behavior Game with PBIS Middle School PATHS & Good Behavior Game with PBIS Middle School Coping Power for PBIS non-responders – PBISplus Project Supports for non-responders through connection with SST

PBISplus Project Design Federally funded 3-year randomized controlled trial (USDOE/IES) 45 elementary schools that have high fidelity PBIS & “yellow-zone” needs - Cohort 1: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Charles, & Howard; - Cohort 2: Carroll & Prince George’s Random assignment to either “SWPBIS” or “Plus” condition Aims Address needs of PBIS “non-responders” Increase use of evidence-based programs Reduce behavior problems & improve achievement Reduce disproportionality Strategy Provide training, support, and on-site technical assistance to SSTs and staff regarding: – Simplified functional behavioral assessment and “function-based thinking” – Evidence-based programs – Effective teaming and collaborative problem-solving – Cultural competency training & culturally appropriate interventions PBISplus

Summary of Support Services Provided by PBISplus Liaisons Note. Data from Year 1 (Sept – May), N=14 schools

Observations from the Field: Year 1 in PBISplus Schools need additional services and supports for the children not responding adequately to the universal model In Year 1, Liaisons conducted 432 school visits – ≈ 3.4 visits per month, 3 hours each – 1,296 total hours of consultation Most common services: – Attend SST meetings, conduct needs assessment, model/shadow classroom observations, & model/shadow consultations with teachers Potential areas for additional technical assistance: – SWPBIS coaching, FBA, SST process, data-based decision- making, & implementation fidelity of Check-in/Check-out PBISplus

What’s next?? What do we need to know from you as we move forward?

Acknowledgements Johns Hopkins Phil Leaf Katrina Debnam Qing Zheng Mary Mitchell Catherine Bradshaw Maryland State Department of Education Chuck Buckler Ann Chafin Andrea Alexander Milt McKenna Research Funding P. Leaf: NIMH (R01 MH A1 ) P. Leaf: CDC (R49/CCR318627) C. Bradshaw: CDC (K01CE ) Additional Information on PBIS Sheppard Pratt Health System Burt Lohnes Susan Barrett Jerry Bloom

Contact Information-PBIS Management Team NAME/PHONE AGENCY Andrea Susan SPHS Brian MSDE Jerry SPHS Catherine JHU Shanda MSDE Phil JHU Milt MSDE Richard