Updated 8-8-18

P.A. 100-0105: Preventing Expulsion of Children Birth to Five – Frequently Asked Questions

What does Public Act 100-0105 do? P.A. 100-0105 prohibits early care and education (ECE) providers from

expelling young children (ages 0-5) from their program because of the child’s behavior. Providers must take

documented steps to address the child’s behavioral and other needs in order to keep the child in care, and if

ultimately necessary, providers can work with the family on a ‘planned transition’ to a more appropriate setting;

this ‘planned transition’ process is not considered an expulsion. Providers also have to report data related to

transitions. More specific guidelines will be clarified through the rulemaking process.

Who has to comply with this requirement? Effective January 2018, this applies to the following early childhood

programs:

School- and community-based programs receiving Early Childhood Block Grant funds (PFA, PI)

Licensed child care providers serving children ages 0-5

Note: Expulsions are already prohibited for Head Start and Early Head Start programs

The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and State Board of Education (ISBE) will put forth

administrative rules with uniform guidance and requirements to ensure continuity across programs.

What documentation is required? When a child shows consistently challenging behaviors, the ECE provider must

document their efforts to address the child’s needs and keep him or her in the program, including but not limited

to:

Initial observations of challenging behaviors

Communication with the family, family’s input in any intervention, and family consent for or refusal of

services

Plan for addressing issues with the child, including resources/services/interventions contacted and used

If and how the child is transitioned out of program (in situations where this is determined to be most

appropriate)

What resources are available to help me address children’s needs and behaviors? How do I find them?

Resources are available to help providers address the needs of a specific child and support the healthy

development of all children in their program. Resources include:

Developmental and social emotional screenings for the child o More information: ExceleRate Illinois; Child Find Project

Consultation services from an infant/toddler specialist or infant/early childhood mental health consultant o Contact: Child Care Resource & Referral agency or ISBE

Referrals to Early Intervention (0-3) or Early Childhood Special Education (3-5) o Referral forms and information: Early Intervention Clearinghouse; ExceleRate Illinois

Professional development trainings and other resources o CCR&R, Gateways to Opportunity, Early Intervention Training Program, Early Choices, The Center: Early

Childhood Professional Learning, STARnet

Consultation with child’s primary care physician

Some resources may require parental consent. What if the parent does not consent to services? Providers should

document when they talk to families about interventions and services, and whether or not the family agreed to

services. If the family does not consent, and the provider is unable to effectively care for the child without those

interventions, the provider may start the ‘planned transition’ process. At enrollment into the ECE program, it is

important for providers to tell families about the program’s discipline policy, including what steps they will take

and resources they will use to address the child’s needs. This helps families know what resources are available

and how the family can get the services if they need them.

I requested a mental health consultant, but there is a long wait time before the visit. What do I do? Providers

should document that they made a request and how long until the consultant can visit. In the meantime,

providers should try to get other resources, if available, and keep working with the family. If the provider decides

they are unable to wait for the consultant’s visit, they may start the ‘planned transition’ process.

I referred a child to EI and/or Special Education, but they did not qualify for services. What do I do? Providers

should document the referral and any result. They should also work to ensure that parents are aware of their right

to appeal a decision if they have concerns. Providers should also work to engage other available resources,

including but not limited to, a local health department, the child’s pediatrician, a mental health consultant, a

local mental health provider, or the Child Care Resource and Referral Agency.

What is a planned transition? If the provider has tried many times to use all available resources and has come to

a decision that keeping the child in the program is not in the best interest of the child or the child’s peers, the

provider should work with the family to transition the child out of the program. Providers should work with families

to find a more appropriate setting by making referrals to other programs. If possible, the provider should work

with the new provider to help plan a smooth transition.

Where will children be transitioned to? What if there is not another program available? ECE providers should offer

referrals to other early childhood settings in the community, and work with families to identify the best setting for

the child. If the family (with provider’s help) does not identify an alternative center or home provider, the intent

is not to require the current provider to continue caring for the child. The provider should still document their

efforts to work with the family on the transition.

What if the child is an immediate threat to the safety of him/herself or others? In the case of serious safety threat,

the child may be temporarily removed from the group setting. Providers should document the incident, and work

with the family and available resources to return the child to a group setting as soon as possible. If the provider’s

professional judgment is to transition the child out of the program, they should start the process.

What is a temporary removal? The state agencies may choose to specify these terms in the administrative rules,

but the legislation does not explicitly define temporary removals or where children should go. The intent is to allow

providers to use their discretion based on the situation at hand. Therefore, temporary removal can be a range of

things, such as taking a break from the classroom or being sent home. However, best practice is that any

intervention be developmentally appropriate and the goal is for the child to return to the group setting as quickly

as possible.

How will this new law be enforced? The monitoring process for licensed child care and ISBE-funded early

childhood programs will be decided by DCFS, ISBE, and other state agencies, including the Office of Early

Childhood Development. The state agencies are working together to develop these specifics through

administrative rule. When the proposed rules are posted, providers and all those interested may submit public

comments to weigh in on the proposed rules, including any specifics on enforcement.

How will data be collected? DCFS and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) are currently working on the

process for providers to report data related to this new law. The legislation called for reporting to begin July 2018;

providers should look for further guidance from state agencies coming soon.

www.pyramidmodel.orgPB www.pyramidmodel.org 1

The Pyramid Model: PBS in Early Childhood Programs and its Relation to School-wide PBS

Multi-tiered systems of evidence-based support have expanded tremendously in recent years, rapidly becoming the sine qua non of comprehensive approaches to educational, social and behavioral interventions (Fox, Dunlap, Hemmeter, Strain & Joseph, 2003; Sailor, Dunlap, Sugai, & Horner, 2009; Walker et al., 1996). Much of the growth has occurred within a framework of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) and, more specifically, School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SW-PBS), which uses a cascade (tiers) of evidence-based practices to improve school climate, overall discipline and reduce the occurrence of problem behaviors in school settings (Sailor et al., 2009). Since 1997, with the advent of amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the term most commonly applied to PBS in schools is “Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS),” although this term is typically used synonymously with SW-PBS.

Related efforts have been seen in early childhood care and education. In 2003, a group of federally-funded researchers and program developers described a multi-tiered approach for early intervention and early childhood programs (birth to five years) that they titled the “Pyramid Model” (Fox et al., 2003). Like SW-PBS, the Pyramid Model is a framework comprised of universal, secondary, and tertiary strategies and system supports designed to improve the social emotional competence of young children and reduce behavioral challenges. The Pyramid Model is also based on evidence-based procedures drawn primarily from the PBS approach and the research on effective intervention approaches for very young children. Due to its multi-tiered framework and structural parallels to SW-PBS, the Pyramid Model, and similar early childhood approaches, has been referred to as Program-wide Positive Behavior Support (PW-PBS).

At first glance, it may appear that the structural and procedural similarities between SW-PBS and multi-tiered systems in early childhood programs are such that applications of PBIS programs (SW-PBS) in preschool and toddler settings would be a straightforward matter of simply applying the training materials and curricula for these programs serving younger children. And, to some extent, this may be true. There are important conceptual and structural features that pertain across all age groups. But there are also essential differences. In this brief article, we have two objectives. First, we wish to define and explain terms that have been adopted to refer to frameworks and content of multi-tiered educational systems relevant for preschool and school-age (K-12) populations. Second, we will attempt to describe key areas of similarity and difference between preschool and school-age programs from the perspective of PBS-based multi-tiered systems.

November, 2015

Glen Dunlap

& Lise Fox

www.pyramidmodel.org2

Terms and Definitions

As an approach, Positive Behavior Support (PBS) has grown in many ways since its inception in the mid-1980s (Lucyshyn, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2015). Initially, PBS developed as an approach for addressing problem behaviors of individuals with severe developmental disabilities and, during its first decade or so, the entire focus of PBS was on the needs of individuals with problem behavior. The approach was known by a variety of terms including nonaversive behavior management, positive behavioral support, and positive behavior supports. A major step was taken when PBS acknowledged the need for intervention practices that could serve to prevent the development of serious problem behaviors. This is when many PBS proponents adopted multi-tiered systems that included universal and secondary practices (Walker et al., 1996; Sugai et al., 2000), in addition to the relatively intensive and individualized tertiary practices that had previously constituted the entire approach of PBS.

Given the expansion and multi-faceted developments that have occurred in the past few decades, it is not at all surprising that the terms and definitions associated with positive behavior support have generated confusion. There has been uncertainty in the use of labels and descriptors related to levels of PBS applications as well as in usage across populations and age groups, such as school-age versus early childhood. There have been efforts to clarify PBS terminology (e.g., Dunlap, Kincaid, Horner, Knoster, & Bradshaw, 2014), as presented below:

Positive Behavior Support (PBS) is recognized as the term that refers to the PBS approach as a whole because the term is regarded as having broad generality and because it is not associated with limitations of context or applicability. Some agencies and organizations began to avoid the use of “PBS” due to potential confusion with the Public Broadcasting System, however it has been determined that neither confusion nor legal action are issues of concern as long as the acronym, “PBS,” is accompanied by the full referent, “positive behavior support.”

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a term that was introduced in the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and it is very commonly used to refer to applications of PBS in schools. Due to its association with IDEA, the US Department of Education, and the influential, federally-funded technical assistance center (e.g., pbis.

org), PBIS is the label that has been adopted most widely by educators. However, it is important to recognize that PBIS is a subset of PBS and has not been used generally to refer to individualized PBS in homes or communities or in non-school applications such as in juvenile justice or early childhood education and care. As mentioned previously, PBIS is often used interchangeably with SW-PBS.

School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SW-PBS) refers to multi-tiered applications of PBS in schools, K-12, with an emphasis on preventative strategies at universal, secondary, and tertiary levels.

Program-wide Positive Behavior Support (PW-PBS) is multi-tiered applications of PBS in early childhood programs such as public and private preschool programs, public and private child care, and Head Start. Program-wide implementation of the Pyramid Model (Fox et al., 2003) is an example of PW-PBS.

SW-PBS (or PBIS) and the Pyramid Model: Similarities and Differences

School-wide PBS is a multi-tiered framework of evidence-based practices to be used on school campuses (K-12) that is designed to enhance school climate and promote improved behavioral, social and academic outcomes. Practices are organized in a continuum distinguished by three tiers: universal practices, which are intended for entire school populations; secondary or targeted practices, intended for high-risk segments of the population, and; tertiary practices which are individualized and intensive strategies focused on those students who already present with serious challenges in need of intervention. SW-PBS is characterized by a number of essential elements:

• school-wide leadership teams;

• collection of data to monitor progress and to assess fidelity of implementation;

• use of data for data-based decision making;

• professional development, including coaching for school teams and implementation support;

• ongoing teaching and monitoring of students’ response to explicit and publicly-presented behavioral expectations;

• systems for responding to problem behaviors and violations of behavioral expectations;

www.pyramidmodel.org2 www.pyramidmodel.org 3

• promotion of family engagement, and

• instruction, prompting and acknowledgement of appropriate social skills.

SW-PBS is based on the conceptual and procedural foundations of positive behavior support, applied behavior analysis, direct instruction and principles of prevention and implementation sciences.

The Pyramid Model was developed to define the evidence-based practices and approaches that can be used within a program to promote young children’s social emotional competence and address challenging behavior. The Pyramid Model practices are based on research on effective instruction for young children (Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta, & Mashburn, 2010; National Research Council, 2001), strategies to promote engagement and appropriate behavior (Chien et al., 2010; Conroy, Brown, & Olive 2008), promotion of children’s social skills and emotional competencies (Domitrovich et al., 2012; Vaughn et al., 2003), and implementation of assessment-based behavior support plans for children with the most severe behavior challenges (Blair, Fox, & Lentini, 2010; Conroy, Dunlap, Clarke, & Alter, 2005; McLaren & Nelson, 2009). The Pyramid Model is an example of Program-wide Positive Behavior Support. Like SW-PBS, the Pyramid Model is a multi-tiered framework comprised of a continuum of evidence-based practices that are organized in three-tiered continuum of prevention, promotion and intervention. The principal difference between the Pyramid Model and SW-PBS is that the Pyramid Model is uniquely designed to address the needs and contexts of programs serving infants, toddlers and preschoolers. There is great overlap in the key characteristics of SW-PBS and the Pyramid Model. For example, each of the eight elements listed above for SW-PBS are also key elements of the Pyramid Model.

There are also differences between the SW-PBS and the Pyramid Model, although the differences tend to be a matter of degree rather than kind.

1. Developmental Stages of Children. Very young children are not ready to comprehend or respond to the same kinds of expectations or teaching practices as children in elementary and secondary school. To optimize children’s learning and engagement, it is important to be certain that the expectations, guidance and instruction be developmentally appropriate. Developmental

appropriateness refers to the extent that instructional practices are matched to the developmental stages of young children. This is particularly important as children are rapidly maturing and beginning to use and understand language, grow in their abilities to self-regulate, move from a complete reliance on adults to developing some functional independence and meaningful relationships with peers, and acquire symbolic and representational capacities. Thus, programs must consider that the developmental levels of the children they are supporting can range from neo-natal to age five and ensure that expectations and teaching approaches are responsive to the child’s abilities. Furthermore, preschool children’s learning occurs primarily in the context of play activities rather than didactic instruction and seat work.

A related distinction is that behaviors that are considered problematic if displayed by students in elementary school are often developmentally-normative for younger children. For instance, it is normal for toddlers, 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds to engage in some crying and even tantrum behavior. The social-emotional development of young children is not as advanced as with children in elementary schools, so standards and expectations need to be gauged to developmental realities. In determining a response to challenging behavior, early educators must be able to distinguish between behaviors that are developmentally normative and those that might be alarming or in need of further examination and support. A critical feature for early childhood programs is the inclusion of curricula and teaching practices that place a central emphasis on healthy social-emotional development with activities focusing on emotional self-regulation, emotional literacy, and basic social skills such as sharing and problem solving.

2. Family Engagement. Both SW-PBS and the Pyramid Model encourage family engagement with the school’s and program’s policies and practices. In the Pyramid Model, in the context of early childhood programs, this feature is even more important than in SW-PBS. Common family engagement elements include: frequent bidirectional communication with families; provision of resources and education programs to families; ongoing collaboration with families to identify learning priorities and goals for children for home and school, including family knowledge, skills, culture, and participation in the learning program; and

www.pyramidmodel.org4

activities aimed at nurturing the parent-child relationship. The development of partnerships with families is viewed by early educators as essential for child learning and family well-being. This is obviously the case when the early childhood program provides home-based services, and many infant and toddler programs offer only home visiting services, but it is also the case in preschools, when parents still expect (and are expected) to assume a dominant role in all forms of early guidance and education. Early childhood programs using the Pyramid Model assume active responsibilities for communication, collaboration and assistance for parents of all of their children.

3. Role of the Office. A difference between discipline procedures for schools as opposed to early childhood programs is that the central office generally serves a minimal function in early childhood operations. That is, in the Pyramid Model (PW-PBS), the office assumes administrative, training, classroom support, and evaluation functions, but the implementation of evidence-based practices occurs within the classroom. In early childhood programs, “office discipline referrals” have little meaning. Data are recorded by teachers or other staff, and these include behavior incident reports, but the locus of implementation control remains in the classroom. In PW-PBS, teachers are trained to identify behavior incidents that should be tracked and data on behavior incidents can be used as an efficient system to initiate a process for ensuring the delivery of appropriate intervention support. Thus, children do not “go to the office;” but supports are provided within the classroom in collaboration with the teacher and family.

4. Acknowledgement systems. Acknowledgement systems are a core component of ensuring students learn and adhere to school-wide expectations that are established in the prevention tier of school-wide PBS. Often acknowledgement systems include establishing a token economy so that students can be rewarded tangibly and efficiently for engaging in appropriate behavior. A token economy is not used with very young children in PW-PBS as young children’s understanding that the token represents a future reinforcer is very limited. Thus, the token is less effective in motivating or teaching appropriate behavior. For young children, positive descriptive feedback that is delivered immediately and enthusiastically is often

sufficient for helping children understand and follow expectations.

5. Teaching practices. In the Pyramid Model, researchers and program developers have specified the teaching and caregiving practices that constitute the primary promotion, secondary prevention, and tertiary intervention approaches for promoting healthy social-emotional development and reducing challenging behaviors. These evidence-based practices are used to support families to promote their children’s social development in a home visiting program, and establish effective instructional routines in infant-toddler classrooms and pre-kindergarten setting serving children ages 2-5 years. It is these practices that are pivotal to helping children learn social behavior, navigate peer relationships, understand and regulate their emotions, respond to the emotions of others, and engage in problem solving. In PW-PBS, the teaching of expectations and rules to children occurs through intentional embedded instruction that is designed to match the child’s level of cognitive and communicative abilities. Similar to school-wide PBS, expectations are visible within the program, are shared with families and the community, and are applied to all children and adults within the program.

6. Data Decision-Making Tools. A core element of positive behavior support is the use of data to inform intervention and systems development. This applies to SW-PBS and PW PBS, including the Pyramid Model). However, it is important to acknowledge that the tools used for data decision-making must be matched to the population and context where they are applied. In the Pyramid Model, there are data decision-making tools to assess and track the implementation of program-wide supports by the program leadership team, to identify the strengths and needs of practitioners in the implementation of Pyramid Model practices to track behavior and program incidents, to regularly screen children for social emotional support needs, and to monitor the progress of interventions (see http://challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.edu/do/resources/documents/roadmap_7.pdf for a description). Tools that are designed for schools or classrooms enrolling children Kindergarten through 12th grade are not designed for the unique contexts of an early childhood program and classroom.

www.pyramidmodel.org4 www.pyramidmodel.org 5

Summary

The Pyramid Model is a well-established example of PW-PBS and, as such, is closely aligned with SW-PBS (and PBIS). It shares the same distinctive features and it is derived from the same conceptual and procedural foundations. The key difference between the Pyramid Model and SW-PBS is the age of the population for whom the approaches are intended. The age difference has some important ramifications, and these have been listed in the preceding paragraphs. However, these issues are fairly simple to address and, as they are, we believe that the linking of the Pyramid Model (and PW-PBS) and SW- PBS offers a framework for a seamless system of behavioral supports with an unprecedented potential for addressing the emotional and behavioral concerns of children and youth from their early years of development into adulthood.

References

Blair, K. S. C., Fox, L., & Lentini, R. (2010). Use of positive behavior support to address the challenging behavior of young children within a community early childhood program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30, 68-79.

Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 166-176.

Chien, N. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R. C., Ritchie, S., Bryant, D. M…Barbarin, O. A. (2010). Children’s classroom engagement and school readiness gains in pre-kindergarten. Child Development, 81, 1534-1549.

Conroy, M. A., Brown, W. H., & Olive, M. L. (2008). Social competence interventions for young children with challenging behaviors. In W. H. Brown, S. L. Odom & S. R. McConnell (Eds.), Social competence of young children: Risk, disability, & intervention (pp. 205‐231). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Conroy, M.A., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Alter, P.J. (2005). A descriptive analysis of positive behavioral intervention research with young children with challenging behavior. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25, 157-166.

Domitrovich, C. E., Moore, J. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of social-emotional interventions for young children through high-quality implementation of evidence-based interventions. In B. Kelly & D.F. Perkins (Eds.), Handbook of implementation science for psychology in education (pp. 207-229). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Hemmeter, M.L., Joseph, G.E., & Strain, P.S. (2003). The teaching pyramid: A model for supporting social competence and preventing challenging behavior in young children. Young Children, July 2003, 48-52.

Lucyshyn, J.M., Dunlap, G., & Freeman, R. (2015). A historical perspective on the evolution of positive behavior support as a science-based discipline. In F. Brown, J. Anderson, & R. DePry (Eds.), Individual positive behavior supports: A standards-based guide to practices in school and community-based settings (pp. 3-25). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

McLaren, E. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2009). Using functional behavior assessment to develop behavior interventions for children in Head Start. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 3-21.

National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. B. T. Bowman, M. S. Donovan, & M. S. Burns (Eds.), Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sailor, W., Dunlap, G., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2009) (Eds). Handbook of positive behavior support. New York: Springer.

Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T.J., Nelson, C.M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A.P., Turnbull, H.R. III, Wickham, D., Ruef, M., & Wilcox, B. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 131-143.

Vaughn, S., Kim, A., Sloan, C. V. M., Hughes, M. T., Elbaum, B., & Sridhar, D. (2003). Social skills interventions for young children with disabilities: A synthesis of group design studies. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 2-15.

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 194-209.

1

In the last decade there has been tremendous growth in the number of young children enrolled in publicly funded preschool programs with 41.5 percent of 4-year-olds and 14.5 percent of 3-year-olds served in publicly funded preschool,

Head Start, or early childhood special education programs (Barnett, Carolan, Squires, Brown, & Horowitz, 2015). While many of these services are provided within community early care and education programs, increasingly preschool classrooms are being located on school campuses.

The location of preschool classrooms on the elementary school campus offers a wonderful opportunity for providing high quality early education programs and a seamless transition to kindergarten. However, the inclusion of preschool classrooms can pose challenges for school-wide initiatives. In this brief, we discuss some of the issues related to implementing School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (SW-PBIS) and offer some tips for achieving the successful inclusion of preschool classrooms in your efforts.

Commonly encountered issues:Issues that might occur related to the inclusion of preschool classrooms in your school-wide initiative are:

� Teachers in the preschool classroom might not understand the application of SW-PBIS to their context. Teachers might regard SW-PBIS as being a school-wide discipline approach that is more relevant to older children.

� Teachers in the preschool classroom generally do not use token systems to acknowledge child engagement in expectations and therefore might not understand how they can participate in the school-wide initiative. Young children often do not have the symbolic representation skills or social development to understand a token economy and are not motivated by reinforcers that are not immediate.

� Teachers of young children expect that they will encounter child challenging behavior in their classrooms as young children are early in their social development and their ability to be members of a social group, express emotions appropriately, and engage in social problem solving. The development of discipline referral tracking systems related to identifying common rule violations and uniform responses is not applicable to the preschool classroom.

� Teachers in the preschool classroom might raise objections to being included in the use of common SW-PBIS data decision-making tools as they do not offer considerations for the unique context of the early childhood classroom. For example, teachers might not be using the school-wide discipline system in their classroom and might have children who are unable to recite expectations due to their limited communication or cognitive development.

� School faculty and staff might not have adequate experience with preschool children to make modifications to the SW initiative and therefore overlook the opportunity to teach and reinforce social skills and appropriately address challenging behavior.

August 2015

Lise Fox & Denise Perez Binder University of South Florida

Getting Preschool Classrooms on Board with School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (SW-PBIS)

2

Strategies for inclusion:The success of School-Wide PBIS is reliant on the buy-in of all school staff and impacting outcomes for ALL students. Thus, it is important that the concerns of teachers of preschool children are addressed and that they become part of your initiative. The following strategies can be used to ensure that your SW approach considers the unique context and concerns of the preschool classroom.

� Provide opportunities for input and teaming – Because the preschool classroom serves a population that has unique needs and the evidence-based practices used to promote child outcomes has a research literature that might differ from K-5 classrooms, it is important to acknowledge these differences. We suggest ensuring that preschool classrooms are represented with a designated seat on the school leadership team. This will provide an opportunity for all team members to learn about the curriculum provided in the preschool classroom and the concerns of teachers of young children. Moreover, collaborative teaming will allow the preschool teacher to fully understand the school-wide approach.

� Acknowledge differences – An important concept of PBIS is that interventions should be contextually and culturally appropriate (Singer & Wang, 2009; Sugai, O’Keefe, & Fallon, 2012). The concerns about the unique needs and capacities of young children and the design of the early childhood curriculum that might be expressed by the preschool teachers are authentic and valid. It will be important to acknowledge these differences and make adjustments. For example, the preschool classroom might not participate in the token system in the same manner as the upper grade classrooms. However, preschool teachers who encounter students in the upper grades in general school settings (e.g., cafeteria, bus loading zone, play-ground) must be knowledgeable about the school-wide discipline system and how to respond to students.

� Adapt participation expectations when developmentally appropriate – The concept of developmental appropriateness is foundational to early education. Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) refers to the delivery of intentional instruction that acknowledges the importance of providing experiences to children that are matched to their developmental characteristics and responsive to each child as an individual. In addition, DAP requires that early educators considers a child’s cultural, social, and family context in the design of the learning environment (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Allow the preschool teachers to identify how they might meet the intent of the school-wide systems without violating concerns they might have about developmental appropriateness. For example, rather than using the token system for individual acknowledgement, the preschool classroom might use the acknowledgement system for whole class celebrations of their effort to engage in expectations. Similarly, because young children will not be sent to the office for rule violations, the expectation to participate in an Office Discipline Referral system should not be applied to preschool classrooms.

� Provide training and support for classroom implementation – The relationship between the teacher and the child is of primary importance in a high quality early education classroom. Young children will not be in general school environments without the supervision of their teachers and will look to their teachers for guidance, support, and instruction. Thus, it is the teacher who is most influential in promoting the child’s social emotional skills and addressing challenging behavior. This means that teachers must be well-trained in the evidence-based

3

practices to use to promote social and emotional competence, prevent behavior issues, and intervene with challenging behavior. Similarly to how K-12 teachers are trained and coached on PBIS procedures, training and coaching should be provided to preschool teachers on the specific practices that might be used within the early childhood classroom to teach social emotional skills and address challenging behavior. There are numerous resources and materials that are aligned with PBIS and have research support for strengthening the practice of preschool teachers (see www. challengingbehavior.org and http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu).

� Use assessments that are contextually appropriate and valid for the preschool classroom – In the selection of tools and measures to use for data based decision-making in your school-wide initiative, consider the use of tools that have been developed specifically for preschool classrooms or making adjustments to tools for the consideration of early educators. For example, the leadership team might make adjustments to scoring criteria of the PBIS Team Implementation Checklist (Sugai, Horner, Lewis-Palmer, Rossetto & Dickey, 2014) when early childhood classrooms are not using tangible rewards or applying major and minor rules and procedures. Similarly there may be items on the School-Wide Benchmarks of Quality (Kincaid, Childs, & George, 2010) that will not apply to preschool classrooms (e.g., systems of rewards, expectations for the use of tangible rewards, use of Office Discipline procedures). Tools that have been developed for use in the preschool classroom include the Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT™) (Hemmeter, Fox, & Snyder, 2014), the Preschool-Wide Evaluation Tool (PreSET™) (Steed & Pomerleau, 2012), the Early Childhood Program-Wide PBS Benchmarks of Quality (Fox, Hemmeter, & Jack, 2010) and the Behavior Incident Recording System ( Fox, Binder, Liso, & Duda, 2010). More information on tools designed for use in the preschool classroom may be found on www.challengingbehavior.org.

The inclusion of preschool classroom in the SW-PBIS process should not be considered a separate initiative but rather an expansion of the ongoing implementation process. When school teams commit to including ALL students in the SW-PBIS initiative, they will benefit from greater academic, social, and emotional outcomes as well as a more cohesive and positive school climate.

ReferencesBarnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Squires, J.H., Clarke Brown, K., &

Horowitz, M. (2015). The state of preschool 2014: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Copple, C. & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Fox, L., Binder, D. P., Liso, D., & Duda, M. (2010). Behavior Incident Recording System. Available on http://challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.edu/communities/coaches_main.html.

Fox, L., Hemmeter, M. L., & Jack, S. (2010). Early Childhood Program-Wide PBS Benchmarks of Quality. Available on http://challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.edu/communities/coaches_main.html and https://www.pbisapps.org.

Hemmeter, M.L., Fox, L., Snyder, P. (2014). Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT™) for preschool classrooms manual. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Kincaid, D., Childs, K., & George, H. (2010). School-wide Benchmarks of Quality (Revised). Available from https://www.pbisapps.org.

Steed, E.A., Pomerleau, T.M., (2012). Preschool-wide evaluation tool (PreSET) manual: Assessing universal program-wide positive behavior support in early childhood. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Singer, G. H. S., & Wang, M. (2009). The intellectual roots of positive behavior support and their implications for its development. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, and R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook on Positive Behavior Support (pp. 17-46). New York, NY: Springer.

Sugai, G., O’Keeffe, B. V., & Fallon, L. M. (2012). A contextual consideration of culture and school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14,197-208.

Sugai, G., Horner, R., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Rossetto Dickey, C. (2014). Team Implementation Checklist, Version 3.1. Available from https://www.pbisapps.org.

Updated 8-8-18

P.A. 100-0105: Preventing Expulsion of Children Birth to Five – Frequently Asked Questions

What does Public Act 100-0105 do? P.A. 100-0105 prohibits early care and education (ECE) providers from

expelling young children (ages 0-5) from their program because of the child’s behavior. Providers must take

documented steps to address the child’s behavioral and other needs in order to keep the child in care, and if

ultimately necessary, providers can work with the family on a ‘planned transition’ to a more appropriate setting;

this ‘planned transition’ process is not considered an expulsion. Providers also have to report data related to

transitions. More specific guidelines will be clarified through the rulemaking process.

Who has to comply with this requirement? Effective January 2018, this applies to the following early childhood

programs:

School- and community-based programs receiving Early Childhood Block Grant funds (PFA, PI)

Licensed child care providers serving children ages 0-5

Note: Expulsions are already prohibited for Head Start and Early Head Start programs

The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and State Board of Education (ISBE) will put forth

administrative rules with uniform guidance and requirements to ensure continuity across programs.

What documentation is required? When a child shows consistently challenging behaviors, the ECE provider must

document their efforts to address the child’s needs and keep him or her in the program, including but not limited

to:

Initial observations of challenging behaviors

Communication with the family, family’s input in any intervention, and family consent for or refusal of

services

Plan for addressing issues with the child, including resources/services/interventions contacted and used

If and how the child is transitioned out of program (in situations where this is determined to be most

appropriate)

What resources are available to help me address children’s needs and behaviors? How do I find them?

Resources are available to help providers address the needs of a specific child and support the healthy

development of all children in their program. Resources include:

Developmental and social emotional screenings for the child o More information: ExceleRate Illinois; Child Find Project

Consultation services from an infant/toddler specialist or infant/early childhood mental health consultant o Contact: Child Care Resource & Referral agency or ISBE

Referrals to Early Intervention (0-3) or Early Childhood Special Education (3-5) o Referral forms and information: Early Intervention Clearinghouse; ExceleRate Illinois

Professional development trainings and other resources o CCR&R, Gateways to Opportunity, Early Intervention Training Program, Early Choices, The Center: Early

Childhood Professional Learning, STARnet

Consultation with child’s primary care physician

Some resources may require parental consent. What if the parent does not consent to services? Providers should

document when they talk to families about interventions and services, and whether or not the family agreed to

services. If the family does not consent, and the provider is unable to effectively care for the child without those

interventions, the provider may start the ‘planned transition’ process. At enrollment into the ECE program, it is

important for providers to tell families about the program’s discipline policy, including what steps they will take

and resources they will use to address the child’s needs. This helps families know what resources are available

and how the family can get the services if they need them.

I requested a mental health consultant, but there is a long wait time before the visit. What do I do? Providers

should document that they made a request and how long until the consultant can visit. In the meantime,

providers should try to get other resources, if available, and keep working with the family. If the provider decides

they are unable to wait for the consultant’s visit, they may start the ‘planned transition’ process.

I referred a child to EI and/or Special Education, but they did not qualify for services. What do I do? Providers

should document the referral and any result. They should also work to ensure that parents are aware of their right

to appeal a decision if they have concerns. Providers should also work to engage other available resources,

including but not limited to, a local health department, the child’s pediatrician, a mental health consultant, a

local mental health provider, or the Child Care Resource and Referral Agency.

What is a planned transition? If the provider has tried many times to use all available resources and has come to

a decision that keeping the child in the program is not in the best interest of the child or the child’s peers, the

provider should work with the family to transition the child out of the program. Providers should work with families

to find a more appropriate setting by making referrals to other programs. If possible, the provider should work

with the new provider to help plan a smooth transition.

Where will children be transitioned to? What if there is not another program available? ECE providers should offer

referrals to other early childhood settings in the community, and work with families to identify the best setting for

the child. If the family (with provider’s help) does not identify an alternative center or home provider, the intent

is not to require the current provider to continue caring for the child. The provider should still document their

efforts to work with the family on the transition.

What if the child is an immediate threat to the safety of him/herself or others? In the case of serious safety threat,

the child may be temporarily removed from the group setting. Providers should document the incident, and work

with the family and available resources to return the child to a group setting as soon as possible. If the provider’s

professional judgment is to transition the child out of the program, they should start the process.

What is a temporary removal? The state agencies may choose to specify these terms in the administrative rules,

but the legislation does not explicitly define temporary removals or where children should go. The intent is to allow

providers to use their discretion based on the situation at hand. Therefore, temporary removal can be a range of

things, such as taking a break from the classroom or being sent home. However, best practice is that any

intervention be developmentally appropriate and the goal is for the child to return to the group setting as quickly

as possible.

How will this new law be enforced? The monitoring process for licensed child care and ISBE-funded early

childhood programs will be decided by DCFS, ISBE, and other state agencies, including the Office of Early

Childhood Development. The state agencies are working together to develop these specifics through

administrative rule. When the proposed rules are posted, providers and all those interested may submit public

comments to weigh in on the proposed rules, including any specifics on enforcement.

How will data be collected? DCFS and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) are currently working on the

process for providers to report data related to this new law. The legislation called for reporting to begin July 2018;

providers should look for further guidance from state agencies coming soon.

Updated 8-13-18 (Websites are current as of this date.)

PA 100-0105

Resources to Support Implementation in Illinois

“Preventing Early Childhood Expulsion in Illinois” recording of webinar hosted by Illinois Action for

Children and the Ounce of Prevention

https://register.gotowebinar.com/recording/2695288214243874049

Caregiver Connections

www.caregiverconnections.org

Crossroads Antiracism Organizing and Training

http://crossroadsantiracism.org

Early Childhood Center of Professional Development

http://www.eclearningil.org/

Early Choices

www.eclre.org

Erikson Institute

http://www.erikson.edu/

ExceleRate Illinois, Child screening guide and tools

http://www.excelerateillinoisproviders.com/resources/resources-by-standard?id=50

Illinois Association for Infant Mental Health

www.ilaimh.org

Illinois Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies

http://www.ilqualitycounts.org/component/sdasearch/?Itemid=142

Illinois Childhood Trauma Coalition

http://lookthroughtheireyes.org

Illinois Children’s Mental Health Partnership

www.icmhp.org

Illinois Head Start Association

https://ilheadstart.org

Illinois Pyramid Model Partnership

https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/OECD/Pages/Pyramid-Model.aspx

Updated 8-13-18 (Websites are current as of this date.)

Illinois STARnet

www.starnet.org

Illinois State Board of Education

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Topics.aspx

https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Early-Childhood.aspx

Transforming School Discipline Collaborative

http://www.transformschooldiscipline.org/

Town Square

http://townsquareil.org