ORGANIZATION & DELIVERY OF TERTIARY SYSTEMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL Cynthia M. Anderson & Kimberli Breen University of Oregon & Illinois PBIS

Challenge for Schools Produce students who are academically and socially competent But, must meet these outcomes in the face of…  Students from increasingly varied backgrounds  Decreasing funding

Problems at Schools  Struggling readers  Can’t read at all  Letter/word reversal  Comprehension difficulties  Memorization difficulties  Retention problems  English language learners  Lack of number recognition  Math fact deficits  Homework completion  Sloppy work  Test anxiety  Oral reading fluency  Poor writing skills  Fights  Property destruction  Weapons violation  Violence toward teachers  Tobacco use  Drug use  Alcohol use  Insubordination  Noncompliance  Late to class  Truancy  Inappropriate language  Harassment  Trespassing  Vandalism  Verbal abuse

Systems Supporting Staff Behavior Practices Supporting Student Behavior OUTCOMES Outcomes Supporting Decision Making SWPBS: Universal Level

Intensive Interventions Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior Targeted Interventions Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior Universal Interventions School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students ~15% ~5% School-Wide Positive Behavior Support

Systems Supporting Staff Behavior Practices Supporting Student Behavior OUTCOMES Outcomes Supporting Decision Making

Practices  Continuum of supports

Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems Tier 2/Secondary Tier 3/ Tertiary Small Group Interventions (CICO, etc) Intervention Assessment Adapted from T. Scott, 2004 Group Interventions with Individualized components Function-based intervention Attendance, RFA, ODR, GPA, etc. CICO data, data from other targeted groups Functional Behavior Assessment

 Continuum of supports  Documentation for targeted and intensive interventions  What intervention consists of  Materials needed  Data-based decision rules  Plan for progress monitoring  Interventions for academic and social behavior linked Practices CICO Features BSP Features

Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions 1-5% Individual students Assessment-based High intensity 1-5%Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions Individual students Assessment-based Intense, durable procedures Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5-15% Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response Small group interventions Some individualizing 5-15%Tier 2/Secondary Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response Small group interventions Some individualizing Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90% All students Preventive, proactive 80-90%Tier 1/Universal Interventions All settings, all students Preventive, proactive School-Wide Systems for Student Success: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Academic Systems Behavioral Systems Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at

Practices  Multiple ways of identifying students who may benefit  Office discipline referrals  Request for assistance  Formative evaluations Sample Formative Evaluation Continuum of supports Interventions for academic and social behavior linked

Outcomes Supporting Decision Making Systems Supporting Staff Behavior Practices Supporting Student Behavior OUTCOMES

Systems  Teams to support all students  SWPBS/leadership team Guide implementation of universal intervention Monitor outcomes and process (fidelity) Braid incoming initiatives into SWPBS Communicate with school community about SWPBS  Teams to Build systems and interventions for secondary tertiary Progress monitor Conduct FBA & wraparound and build interventions

Example: IPBS Systems Goal: Build systems and interventions for secondary tertiary  Initial “new teams training” & admin training Focus on systems and progress monitoring  Monthly district team meetings Support plan coaching Systems for Tier II interventions What skills/materials are needed? What are target behaviors? What is the goal? What defines progress and lack of progress? CICO Features

Example: IPBS Systems  Teams to support all students  SWPBS/leadership team  IPBS Team Responsibilities Membership Coordinator Administrator FBA coordinator Targeted interventions coordinator Academic specialist Representation from Regular and Special ed. Minutes

Example: IPBS Systems  Teams to support all students  SWPBS/leadership team  IPBS team  Student-focused team Responsibilities Conduct functional behavior assessment Build support plan Membership Someone with expertise in function-based support Teacher(s), other stakeholders Parent, student

Systems  Teams to support all students  System for monitoring outcomes  Access to assistance  Assistance for teachers  Assistance for team members  Link across continuum of PBS (universal, targeted, intensive)  School-family connection

Systems Supporting Staff Behavior Practices Supporting Student Behavior OUTCOMES Outcomes Supporting Decision Making

Outcomes/Data  Individual students  Tools for data collection  Tools for easy graphing and evaluation  Teachers receive feedback regularly  Parents receive feedback regularly  Effects of system monitored  Outcomes  Fidelity  Social validity DailyFidelity

 Our Goal: Supporting students with significant challenges  With positive outcomes  With fidelity  Over time

Challenges for Districts  Universal level of PBS available for ALL students  Moving from one-student at a time, reactive approaches to capacity within schools to support the behavior of ALL students?  Developing and implementing systems needed for tertiary implementation  Referrals to Special Education seen as the “intervention”  FBA viewed as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention  Interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect

 Practices to be supported  Targeted interventions  Function-based support  Data-based decision rules Districts Support School Practices  District support  Investment in 2-4 targeted interventions  Initial and on-going training for relevant personnel Build capacity in efficient FBA Technical assistance available for comprehensive FBA/BSP On-site coaching for new IPBS schools  Hiring practices promote implementation of evidence-based interventions

Districts Support School Systems  District teams support school teams  District leadership team  District IPBS team  SWPBS a priority for district  Funding available for school SWPBS efforts

Districts Support School Use of Data  District provides schools data system—all tiers  District uses data to guide decision-making  Training needs  Support needs  District highlights important outcomes for stakeholders

IPBS Timeline

Illinois Example……

Ensuring Capacity at All 3 Tiers  Begin assessment and development of secondary and tertiary tiers at start-up of universal  Assess resources and current practices (specialized services)  Review current outcomes of students with higher level needs  Position personnel to guide changes in practice  Begin planning and training with select personnel  All 3 tiers addressed at all district meetings and at every training

Requirements for IL Tertiary Demos  District Commitment  Designated Buildings/District Staff  External Tertiary Coach/Coordinator  Continuum of Skill Sets (training, guided learning, practice, coaching, consultation)  Commitment to use of Data System  Going beyond ODR ’ s (i.e. SSBD)  Self assessment/fidelity  SIMEO-Student Outcomes

District-wide Secondary/Tertiary Implementation Process  District meeting quarterly  District outcomes  Capacity/sustainability  Other schools/staff  Building meeting monthly  Check on all levels  Cross-planning with all levels  Effectiveness of practices (CICO/BIP/Wrap, etc)  Secondary/Tertiary Coaching Capacity  Wraparound Facilitators

System Data to Consider  LRE  Building and District Level  By disability group  Other “ places ” kids are “ parked ”  Alternative settings  Rooms w/in the building kids are sent  Sub-aggregate groups  Sp. Ed.  Ethnicity

Ongoing Self – Assessment of Secondary/Tertiary Implementation Building Level:  IL Phases of Implementation (PoI) Tool  IL Secondary/Tertiary Intervention Tracking Tool  Sp. Ed Referral Data  Suspensions/Expulsions/Placements (ongoing)  Aggregate Individual Student Data (IL SIMEO data)  LRE Data trends  Subgroup data (academic, discipline, Sp. Ed. Referral, LRE, etc) District Level:  Referral to Sp.Ed. Data  LRE Data (aggregate and by building)  IL Out-of-Home-School-Tracking Tool (multiple sorts)  Aggregate SIMEO data  Aggregate PoI Data

Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems Tier 2/Secondary Tier 3/ Tertiary SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T Small Group Interventions (CICO, SAIG, etc) Intervention Assessment Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Sept., 2008 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004 Group Interventions with Individualized Focus (CnC, etc) Simple Individual Interventions (Brief FBA/BIP, Schedule/ Curriculum Changes, etc) Multiple-Domain FBA/BIP Wraparound ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc. Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc.

Example: Illinois PBIS  Tertiary Systems Planning Team  Secondary Systems Planning Team  Secondary (Generic) Problem Solving Team  Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team  Wraparound Team  District Tertiary Leadership Team

Example: Illinois PBIS’s Tertiary Planning Team  Administrator  Social worker/guidance/school psychologist  General Educator  Special Educator  Tertiary Coach

Example: Illinois PBIS’s Tertiary System Planning Team  Building-based team  Supported by Tertiary Coach  Review/assess all levels of intervention Data, referrals, team perspectives  Focus on effectiveness of Tertiary interventions (data, not individual students)  Pull interventions down to Universal & Secondary levels (efficiency)  Strengthen Tertiary interventions with Universal & Secondary (effectiveness)  Support wraparound facilitators

Example: Illinois PBIS’ 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 (esp. since planning is done based on multiple-life domains). All relevant individuals/staff are invited.

What are the Outcomes? So…..

Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (381 students)

Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (396 students)

Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” (408 students)

Year# of Students 6+ # of Students 2-5 # of Students 0-1 # of ODRs 6+ # of ODRs 2- 5 # of ODRs Cohort 1: Elementary School “A” Triangle Data Breakdown

Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs Elementary School “B” (638 students)

Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs Elementary School B (637 students)

Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs Cohort 1: Elementary School “B” (596 students)

Cohort 1: Elementary School “B” Triangle Data Breakdown Year# of Students 6+ # of Students 2-5 # of Students 0-1 # of ODRs 6+ # of ODRs 2-5 # of ODRs

Schools Reporting Tertiary Level Interventions

Changes in Students Placed in Special Education – Hermansen Elementary School Valley View School District 365U

Tertiary Demonstration Implementation Improves at All Levels of PBIS N=18 schools

Student Data for Home/School/Community Tool HomeSchool Data

Can IPBS be implemented with fidelity? In the District In the schools With individual students Does IPBS affect outcomes Across schools Within a school For individual students Is IPBS viewed as valuable and feasible? Evaluation of IPBS

Can Schools Implement IPBS?

Do Schools Implementing IPBS See Reductions in Student Problem Behavior?

Elementary School Example 3 Office Referrals 4 Office Referrals 5 Office Referrals 6+ Office Referrals

Middle School Example 3 Office Referrals 4 Office Referrals 5 Office Referrals 6+ Office Referrals

What is the relation between implementation and student problem behavior?

Schools Scoring >85 on Foundations of ISSET BaselineYear 1 3 Office Referrals 4 Office Referrals 5 Office Referrals 6+ Office Referrals

Schools Scoring <85 on Foundations of ISSET BaselineYear 1 3 Office Referrals 4 Office Referrals 5 Office Referrals 6+ Office Referrals

Did Consumers View IPBS as useful in schools?

The IPBS training and ongoing technical assistance was effective in helping our school build (or refine existing) systems for responding to students with behavior challenges.

The team is likely to sustain systems developed or refined as a result of participating in the IPBS process over the next 10 years.

Summary…  Multi-tiered, comprehensive supports needed to meet needs of students in schools  Effective and sustained implementation requires clearly articulated  Interventions with empirical support  Systems to support implementation  Strategies to use data to guide decision-making

Questions about Illinois PBIS Questions about IPBS? Kim Breen Cynthia Anderson:

Critical Features of Request for Assistance Forms  Demographic Information (teacher and student)  Definition of problem  Routines analysis  What has been tried  Possible motivation RFA Sample 1 RFA Sample 2

Data Base