Including ALL Students & Positive School Culture Tim Lewis & George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS September 18, 2008

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
School-wide Positive Behavior Support: Keeping the Momentum Going Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions.
Advertisements

Responsiveness to Intervention & School-wide Positive Behavior Support George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University.
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Support -SWPBIS- Mitchell L. Yell, Ph.D. University of South Carolina
Optional PBIS Coaches Meeting November 15, 2010 Tier 2 and Tier 3 Interventions and Supports.
CT PBS Coaches’ Meeting Coaching SWPBS Basics December 9, 2008 Brandi Simonsen, Kari Sassu, & George Sugai.
Building a Realistic Pyramid of Instructional and Behavioral Supports for Prevention and Intervention Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center.
Preventing & Responding to Problem Behavior: Review of Best Practice
George Sugai & Rob Horner OSEP Center on PBIS University of CT & OR
Helpful-providing aid or service to others that is productive or beneficial. We are… All SettingsClassroomHallwaysCafeteriaBathroomsPlaygroundAssembly.
CT PBS Coaches’ Meeting Coaching SWPBS Basics December 9, 2008 Brandi Simonsen, Kari Sassu, & George Sugai.
Teaching Social Skills: The Cornerstone of SW-PBS Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Creating School Environments to Prevent Problem Behaviour and Support Students At-Risk and Those with Disabilities through School-wide Positive Behaviour.
Tim Lewis, Danielle Starkey, Barbara Mitchell University of Missouri
School-wide Positive Behavior Supports Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Intervention & Supports pbis.org.
SWPB Action Planning for District Leadership George Sugai & Susan Barrettt OSEP Center on PBIS University of Connecticut February 14,
School-wide Positive Behavior Support: Outcomes, Data, Practices, & Systems George Sugai Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports University.
Preparing for End & Beginning SWPBS Year: Evaluation & Action Planning George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University.
SWPBS: Implementing with Accuracy & Durability George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut May.
Functional Assessment & Positive Behavior Support Plans
SW-PBS District Administration Team Orientation
School-wide Positive Behavior Support
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: Year One RI PBIS Team & George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of.
Sustaining Change: RtI & SWPBS George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education and Research University of Connecticut March 10,
Supporting and Evaluating Broad Scale Implementation of Positive Behavior Support Teri Lewis-Palmer University of Oregon.
School-wide Positive Behavior Support for All Students: Coaching Implementation George Sugai University of Connecticut Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions.
Building A Tier Two System In An Elementary School: Lessons Learned Tina Windett & Julie Arment Columbia Public Schools, Missouri Tim Lewis & Linda Bradley.
Prevention and Systematic Intervention to Address Social Behavioral Problems: School-wide Positive Behavior Support Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri.
RTI: Reasons, Practices, Systems, & Considerations George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS University of Connecticut December 6,
Blueprints for Success: Building Sustainable School-wide Systems of Behavioral Support Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on Positive.
Are we There Yet? Mapping the SW-PBS Course for the Long Haul Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions.
School-wide Positive Behavior Supports: Implications for Special Educators Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Intervention.
SWPBS: Sustainability George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS University of Oregon Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut March.
Bridging Primary & Secondary/Tertiary Tier Practices & Systems: Responding to Unresponsive Behavior Brandi Simonsen & George Sugai Center on Positive Behavioral.
MO SW Positive Behavior Support MU Center for SW-PBS College of Education University of Missouri.
Is PBIS Evidence-based? George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS University of Oregon Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut August.
Charting a New Course for Student Behavior through School-wide Positive Behavior Support Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on Positive.
Understanding & Planning for Non- Responsive Behavior (Secondary/Tertiary Tier) George Sugai Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports University.
School-Wide PBIS: Action Planning George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut August 11, 2008.
Systems Logic for Sustained Large Scale Implementation George Sugai National Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports UConn Center for Behavioral.
SWPBS: Sustainability, Classroom Management, Interventions for Individual Students Celeste Dickey & George Sugai University of Oregon & Connecticut Center.
School-wide Positive Behavior Support: Discipline & Beyond George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education and Research University of.
SWPBS: Leadership Team Follow-up Jon Dyson, Lavonne Nkomo, George Sugai Center on Disabilities University of Connecticut Center on Positive Behavioral.
School-wide Positive Behavior Support for All Lou DeLoreto E.O. Smith High School George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research.
“Sustaining & Expanding Effective Practices: Lessons Learned from Implementation of School-wide Positive Behavior Supports” Susan Barrett Cyndi Boezio,
Review & Re-establish SW PBIS Tier 1 SRIP – Cohort 9 August 2014.
Myths, Misunderstandings, and Milestones in Implementing School- wide Positive Behavior Support Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on.
SWPBS: Reducing Effectiveness of Bullying Behavior George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut.
SWPBS Fidelity & Sustainability George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS University of Oregon Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut.
Introduction to School-wide Positive Behavior Support.
Sustaining Change: RtI & SWPBS George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education and Research University of Connecticut May 9,
Plants, Camps, Special Education, & Prevention Science George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education and Research University of Connecticut.
Building Safe School Environments through Positive Behavior Supports Tim Lewis, Ph.D. & Barbara Mitchell, Ph.D. University of Missouri OSEP Center on Positive.
Preventing & Responding to Problem Behavior: Review of Best Practice Gene Thompson, Martha Wally, Brandi Simonsen, George Sugai Center on Positive Behavioral.
Introduction to PBIS Forum George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut October
Systems, Data, & Practices to Move PBIS Forward in Ravenswood City School District Sheldon Loman, Ph.D.
Review & Re-establish School-Wide PBIS: Tier 1 Cohort 10 August 2015 *
Review & Re-establish SW PBIS Tier 1 Continuum of Support *
Evolution of RtI & SWPBS George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education and Research University of Connecticut January 23,
SWPBS & RtI for All George Sugai University of Connecticut OSEP Center on PBIS September 24, 2008
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: Rationale, Readiness, Features George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University.
Introduction to School-wide Positive Behavior Support.
Lessons Learned in SWPBS Implementation: Sustainability & Scaling Up George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Connecticut January 15,
W. M. Anderson Primary: School- Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan James Carraway, Chairperson Macie Davis Debra Fulmore Pam Lee Lerlisa McKnight Gail.
RTI: Linking Academic and Behavior Support Wesley Temple Dawn Davis.
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: Getting Started George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS University of Connecticut April 6,
SWPBS: Sustainability
PBIS PRACTICES.
SWPB Action Planning for District Leadership
SWPB Action Planning for District Leadership
MN SW Positive Behavior Support Initiative
Presentation transcript:

Including ALL Students & Positive School Culture Tim Lewis & George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS September 18,

PURPOSE Provide brief overview of features, practices & systems of positive school culture for EVERYONE in school

School-wide Positive Behavior Support 2 Parts G: Principles & Features T: Practices & Data

“141 Days!” Intermediate/senior high school with 880 students reported over 5,100 office discipline referrals in one academic year. Nearly 2/3 of students have received at least one office discipline referral.

5,100 referrals = 76,500 min = 1,275 hrs = hrs

BIG IDEA Successful individual student behavior support is linked to host environments or school climates that are effective, efficient, relevant, durable, & scalable (Zins & Ponti, 1990)

Evaluation Criteria

SWPBS is for EVERYONE by….

What is School-wide Positive Behavior Support (PBIS)?

SYSTEMS PRACTICES DATA Supporting Staff Behavior Supporting Student Behavior OUTCOMES Supporting Social Competence & Academic Achievement Supporting Decision Making Integrated Elements

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 Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior ~80% of Students ~15% ~5% CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ALL SOME FEW

RtI Response to Intervention

Agreements Team Data-based Action Plan ImplementationEvaluation GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Classroom SWPBS Practices Non-classroom Family Student School-wide Smallest # Evidence-based Biggest, durable effect

SCHOOL-WIDE 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 INTERVENTION PRACTICES CLASSROOM 1.Classroom-wide positive expectations taught & encouraged 2.Teaching classroom routines & cues taught & encouraged 3.Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adult- student interaction 4.Active supervision 5.Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors 6.Frequent precorrections for chronic errors 7.Effective academic instruction & curriculum INDIVIDUAL STUDENT 1.Behavioral competence at school & district levels 2.Function-based behavior support planning 3.Team- & data-based decision making 4.Comprehensive person-centered planning & wraparound processes 5.Targeted social skills & self-management instruction 6. Individualized instructional & curricular accommodations NONCLASSROOM 1.Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged 2.Active supervision by all staff (Scan, move, interact) 3.Precorrections & reminders 4.Positive reinforcement FAMILY ENGAGEMENT 1.Continuum of positive behavior support for all families 2.Frequent, regular positive contacts, communications, & acknowledgements 3.Formal & active participation & involvement as equal partner 4.Access to system of integrated school & community resources

~80% of Students ~15% ~5% ESTABLISHING A CONTINUUM of SWPBS SECONDARY PREVENTION Check in/out Targeted social skills instruction Peer-based supports Social skills club TERTIARY PREVENTION Function-based support Wraparound Person-centered planning PRIMARY PREVENTION Teach SW expectations Proactive SW discipline Positive reinforcement Effective instruction Parent engagement SECONDARY PREVENTION TERTIARY PREVENTION PRIMARY PREVENTION

Implementation Levels Student Classroom School State District Country

PBS Implementation Blueprint Funding Visibility Political Support Training Coaching Evaluation Local School Teams/Demonstrations PBS Systems Implementation Logic Leadership Team Active & Integrated Coordination

Valued Outcomes Continuous Self-Assessment Practice Implementation Effective Practices Relevance Priority Efficacy Fidelity SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION & DURABLE RESULTS THROUGH CONTINUOUS REGENERATION

Tim: More Data & Examples Tim

Impact of SW-PBS: Implications For Educators Concerned with Children and Youth At-risk and Those with Disabilities Tim Lewis, Ph.D. University of Missouri

Starting Point We can’t “make” students learn or behave We can create environments to increase the likelihood students learn and behave Environments that increase the likelihood are guided by a core curriculum and implemented with consistency and fidelity

Universal School-Wide Features Clearly define expected behaviors (Rules) Procedures for teaching & practicing expected behaviors Procedures for encouraging expected behaviors Procedures for discouraging problem behaviors Procedures for record-keeping and decision making

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 Individualized Systems for Students with High- Risk Behavior ~80% of Students ~15 % ~5% CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT

I am….All SettingsClassroo m HallwaysCafeteriaBathroomsPlaygroundAssemblies SafeKeep bodies calm in line Report any problems Ask permission to leave any setting  Maintain personal space  Walk  Stay to the right on stairs  Banisters are for hands Walk Push in chairs Place trash in trash can  Wash hands with soap and water  Keep water in the sink  One person per stall  Use equipment for intended purpose  Wood chips are for the ground  Participate in school approved games only  Stay in approved areas  Keep body to self Walk Enter and exit gym in an orderly manner Respect- ful Treat others the way you want to be treated Be an active listener Follow adult direction(s) Use polite language Help keep the school orderly  Be honest  Take care of yourself  Walk quietly so others can continue learning  Eat only your food  Use a peaceful voice  Allow for privacy of others  Clean up after self Line up at first signal Invite others who want to join in Enter and exit building peacefully Share materials Use polite language  Be an active listener  Applaud appropriately to show appreciation A Learner Be an active participant Give full effort Be a team player Do your job Be a risk taker Be prepared Make good choices  Return to class promptly Use proper manners Leave when adult excuses Follow bathroom procedures Return to class promptly Be a problem solver Learn new games and activities Raise your hand to share Keep comments and questions on topic Benton

Self-contained Special Education Building - St. Louis Enrollment % free and reduced lunch Ages 13 and up Serves 8 component districts Physically Impaired Autism Language Impaired Hearing Impaired Multiple/ Severe Disabilities Emotional/ Behavioral Disorder

Self Contained School Supported by PBS Coach Prior to implementing school-wide system, Identified 33 students (17%) with chronic behavior teachers felt would require intensive individualized plans

Reported Results Reduction in inappropriate behavior (verbal aggression, sleeping in class, off task, disruption) Increased prosocial behaviors and task completion Post universal systems, only 5 students (2%) required intensive individualized support plans

Prevention & Supports For Identified and At-risk Students Social Behavior

Does Implementation of SW-PBS improve individual interventions? Illinois “profile” analysis. – Assessment of intervention effectiveness Very Low, Low, Med, High, Very High – School-wide – Individual Intervention

N=223 N=169 N=38 N=17 t = (335) p<.0001 t = 2.30 (27) p <.03 Partial N=169 Full N=22 3 Parti al N=1 7 Full N=38

Mental Health Outcomes Does School-wide SW-PBS fit within a comprehensive mental health model of prevention and intervention? Minimizing and reducing “risk factors” by building “protective factors”

A&D = Alcohol and Drug; ABS = Anti-social Behavior Scale

Impact on Moving Students to More Restrictive Settings Columbia Public Schools Elementary Schools who implement SW-PBS referred students to alternative/special school at lower rates compared to schools who were not implementing SW-PBS (r = , p < 0.01) Elementary Schools who implemented SW-PBS have less recidivism to alternative settings once students returned to home-school

Prevention & Supports For Identified and At-risk Students Achievement

Early Literacy & Behavior (Kelk & Lewis, 2001) What are the effects of three instructional conditions a) social skill instruction, b) phonological / phonemic awareness instruction, and c) a combination of social skill instruction and phonological awareness instruction on the reading related and/or social behavior of at-risk kindergarten children ? Kelk,M. (2001). Preventive early interventions for at-risk children in kindergarten. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Missouri.

Early Literary Outcome Social Skill Outcomes Phonemic Instruction +/-- Social Skill Instruction -+/- Phonemic and SS Instruction ++ Control Group --

Small Group and Individual Interventions Supporting Students At-Risk and those with Disabilities Within Their Home School

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 Individualized Systems for Students with High- Risk Behavior ~80% of Students ~15 % ~5% CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT

Small Group/Targeted Essential Features Part of the continuum – must link to school-wide PBS system Efficient and effective way to identify students Intervention matched to presenting problem but not highly individualized

SSRS-T Social Skills Non PBSPBS Pre Mean72.8 (56-86)78.3 (70-84) Post Mean80 (61-103)90 (77-125) P Value.11.04* SSRS-T Problem Behavior Non PBSPBS Pre Mean123.6 ( )124.8 ( ) Post Mean121.4 ( )124.7 ( ) P Value * Significance at the.05 P Value Table 1. Pre- and Posttest Scores for Subjects on Dependent Variable (SSRS-T)

Intensive / Individual Essential Features Linked to school-wide system When small group not sufficient When problem intense and chronic Driven by Functional Behavioral Assessment

Process (FBA to PBS) Conduct functional behavioral assessment Create plan based on functional assessment outcome Develop infra-structure to support behavior change (school environment must change)

Structural Analysis Setting Factors Assessment Tool Level 1: Classroom Set-up and Structure Level 2: Context Specific Activities Level 3: Instructional Delivery and Tasks Level 4: Student Behavior Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Johnson, N., & Trussell, R. (2004). Toward a structural assessment: Analyzing the merits of an assessment tool for a student with E/BD. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30,

Field Elementary School SW-PBS and RtI with Literacy

Academic SystemsBehavioral Systems 1-5% 5-10% 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

Field Elementary School High Diversity – School has 290 students; 50% minority; 20% English Language Learners; 13% special education Instructional leader turnover Poverty – 79% of students qualify for free and reduced lunches Highly transient population

Field Elementary School +Teachers and Staff committed to the increasing academic and social success of all students +A committed Principal who supported faculty in their efforts to change the way the taught to improve children’s lives

Field Elementary School Academic Standing – Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) 5% of all students scored proficient in 2005, according to the Missouri Assessment Program. Breakdown by ethnicity: – 0% African American – 18% Caucasian – 0% Students with disabilities – 0% English Language Learners – 7% Free/Reduced Priced Lunch

Field Elementary School Literacy In 2004–05, 44% students required intensive support for reading and writing Social Behavior In Averaging 10.4 discipline referrals per day

Positive Behavior Supports

MU College of Education — 140 years of discovery, teaching and learning Impact From 10.4 per day To 1.6 per day

Impact Literacy 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

Impact Improved Academic Standing – Annual Yearly Progress In 2007, 27% of Field’s students scored proficient in 2007 (up from 5%). African American: 0% improved to 16% Caucasian: 18% improved to 57% Students with disabilities: 0% improved to 25% English Language Learners: 0% improved to 27%

Implications & Conclusion

SW-PBS allows educators to build environments that increase the likelihood of student academic and social behavior success through a systemic and supportive process

On school reform… Kauffman states “…attempts to reform education will make little difference until reformers understand that schools must exist as much for teachers as for student. Put another way, schools will be successful in nurturing the intellectual, social, and moral development of children only to the extent that they also nurture such development of teachers.” (1993, p. 7).