1. Virginia PBIS Conference | June 30, 2011 Building Capacity for Progress Monitoring within School-wide Systems of PBIS Lucille Eber IL PBIS Network www.pbisillinois.org

2. 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% SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT

3. SYSTEMS PRACTICES DATA OUTCOMES ٭ Adapted from “What is a systems Approach in school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://www.http://www Pbis.org/schoolwide.htm Supporting Staff Behavior Supporting Decision Making Supporting Student Behavior Social Competence & Academic Achievement

4. PBIS Evaluation Tools Getting Started –Self Assessment Survey (SAS) –Team Implementation Checklist (TIC) –School Safety Survey (SSS) Getting to Implementation Fidelity –TIC –Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ) –Phases of Implementation (PoI) –Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers (BAT) Sustaining Improvement –SAS, BoQ, SSS, BAT, PoI

5. Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T Check-in/ Check-out Individualized Check- In/Check-Out, Groups & Mentoring (ex. CnC) Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/ Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP) Complex 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. Social/Academic Instructional Groups Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Aug.,2009 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004 Tier 2/ Secondary Tier 3/ Tertiary Intervention Assessment

6. Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions 1-5% _____________________ 1-5%Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions ___________________________ Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5-15% ___________________________ 5-15%Tier 2/Secondary Interventions ____________________________ Tier 1/Universal Interventions80-90% ________________________ 80-90%Tier 1/Universal Interventions ____________________________ School-Wide Systems for Student Success: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Academic Systems Behavioral Systems Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/school-wide.htm

7. Continuum of Support for Tier 2/Secondary- Tier 3/Tertiary Level Systems 1.Small group interventions: Check-in Check-Out (CICO), social/academic instructional groups (SAIG), tutor/homework clubs, etc. 2.Group interventions with individualized focus: Utilizing a unique feature for an individual student, e.g. CICO individualized into a Check & Connect (CnC), mentoring/tutoring, etc. 3.Simple individual interventions: A simple individualized function- based behavior support plan for a student focused on one specific behavior, e.g. brief FBA/BIP-one behavior; curriculum adjustment; schedule or other environmental adjustments, etc. 4.Multiple-domain FBA/BIP: A complex function-based behavior support plan across settings, e.g. FBA/BIP home and school and/or community 5.Wraparound: A more complex and comprehensive plan that addresses multiple life domain issues across home, school and community, e.g. basic needs, MH treatment, behavior/academic interventions, as well as multiple behaviors Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Sept., 2008

8. Data-Based Decision-Making Student outcome data is used to: –Identify youth in need of support and to identify appropriate interventions –Progress-monitor youth response to intervention –Exit or transition youth off of interventions Intervention process data is used to: –Assess intervention fidelity –Monitor the effectiveness of the intervention itself –Make decisions regarding the continuum/ menu of interventions/supports

9. Intervention Process Data Assess intervention fidelity –Are teams doing what they say they are doing? –Are interventions being applied the way they were intended/created to be (evidence-based) Monitor the effectiveness of the intervention itself –What’s the percent-effectiveness rate? (how many youth are responding to the intervention?) Make decisions regarding the continuum / menu of interventions/supports –What’s missing? What needs to be created?

10. 3-Tiered System of Support Necessary Conversations (Teams) CICO SAIG Group w. individual feature Complex FBA/BIP Problem Solving Team Tertiary Systems Team Brief FBA/ BIP Brief FBA/BIP WRAP Secondary Systems Team Plans SW & Class-wide supports Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Sept. 1, 2009 Universal Team Universal Support

11. Examples of Tier 2/3 Tools IL PBIS tier 2/3Tracking Tool IL PBIS Systems Response Tool IL PBIS Guiding Questions Tool Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers (BAT)

12. Guiding Questions Tool Assessing and planning your Tier 2 and Tier 3 Systems, data and practices

13. Please list below how your school defines “responding” at each of the six levels: 1.Responding to CICO: 2.Responding to Social/Academic instructional groups: 3.Responding to Simple Tier 2 with Individualized Features (i.e. CNC): 4.Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions: 5.Responding to Complex Function-based Interventions: 6.Responding to Wraparound Plans:

14. Parkwood Elementary School (U-46) 72% (18/25) students averaged daily points at or above 80% 28% (7/25) students averaged below 80% Out of 20 referrals during the four weeks, 11 were received by CICO students 60% (17) students have not received a referral since CICO

15. Perry Elementary School (D300) Entrance to CICO: Teacher referral Two of more office referrals Progress Monitoring on CICO: PAWS (positive actions with support) for PALS (respect property, all others, learning and self). Each student has the ability to earn 56 points a day. (4 areas, 2 point maximum during 7 one hour periods) the goal is that each student will achieve 45 points (or 80%). Exiting CICO: Student s graduate from CICO if they have met 80% or better of their goals during a four week period. Currently 35 students on CICO Approximately 70% of students are increasing total points on a weekly basis. 17.5% of students are being moved to more intensive interventions.

16. Tier 2 Refinement Impacts Student Outcomes,Lakewood School Began their Tier 2 Check-In Check-Out (CICO) system in the Fall of 2008. A review of CICO data this February revealed that many students were not meeting the expectation of 80% on their DPR. The team determined that DPRs were not being consistently provided or documented throughout the school day. The team re-trained the school staff on the CICO systems, reiterating that the intervention is positive student-adult contact and the DPR card is the tool to create the opportunity for interaction. The renewed focus on implementing CICO with fidelity has already had an impact with the average student CICO score increasing from 52% to 86%.

17. Lakewood School, CUSD 300 2011 CICO Scores

18. CICO Individual Student Progress Report 4/74/144/214/285/55/12

19. Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases Simple Secondary Interventions *CICO = Check in, Check Out Tertiary Demos

20. Clearview Elementary Fidelity and Discipline Data Over 3 Years

21. Tier 2 Progress: Rob’s Discipline Data

22. Ben’s Plan A history of psychiatric hospitalizations. Challenging start to fourth grade: a pattern of disruptive and aggressive behaviors. A Check-in-Check-out (CICO) intervention was initiated. A mentor was assigned when CICO data showed he wasn’t experiencing success (partnership btw school & local church). Responded well to his mentor and began meeting his behavioral goals. However by December, Ben was asking his mother if he could be hospitalized so he “could get better”. Building upon the relationship established during CICO, the social worker and mother quickly formed a wrap team. The wrap plan increased collaboration with his mental health provider and incorporated function-based behavior interventions with Ben’s existing supports.

23. Ben’s Outcomes Ben’s behavior improved significantly. His Daily Progress Report (DPR) indicates that Ben met classroom behavioral expectations. Received fewer Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) dropping from 30 ODRs, prior to implementing his wraparound plan, to four by the end of the school year. Ben’s out of school suspensions declined from three at baseline to one before the end of the school year. His grades simultaneously improved from an average of 75% to 83%, an 8% improvement. Over time, Ben was viewed as a student who respected adults and regularly demonstrated self-control at school.

24. Ben’s Daily Progress Report and Office Discipline Referral Data

25. Ratings of Ben’s Social/Emotional Functioning at School

26. Existing Tools for Assessing Process Universal Component of SWPBS –External School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) –Self Assessment Team implementation Checklist (TIC) Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ) Targeted & Intensive Components of SWPBS –External Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (ISSET) –Self Assessment Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT)

27. Three Sections of BAT Foundations/Universal Targeted Interventions Intensive Support Systems

28. BAT-Foundations Implementation of School-wide PBIS (A) Commitment (B) Student Identification (C) Monitoring and Evaluation (D)

29. BAT- Tier 2: Targeted Interventions Support Systems (E) Main Tier 2 Strategy Implementation (F) –Monitoring and Evaluation (G)

30. BAT-Tier 3: Intensive Support Systems Intensive Support Systems (H) Assessment & Plan Development (I) Monitoring and Evaluation (J)

31. Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool and Checklist for Individual Student Systems (CISS)*, 2007-10 (n=8 schools) *CISS tool renamed as Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers (BAT)