Upload
otto
View
51
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Sustaining Change: RtI & SWPBS. George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education and Research University of Connecticut March 10, 2008 www.pbis.org www.cber.org [email protected]. Purpose. RtI & SWPBS & sustaining change: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Sustaining Change:RtI & SWPBS
George SugaiOSEP Center on PBIS
Center for Behavioral Education and Research
University of ConnecticutMarch 10, 2008
www.pbis.org www.cber.org
Purpose
RtI & SWPBS & sustaining change:– Promoting effective, efficient, & relevant
teaching & learning environments
– Working from continuum of behavior support for all students
– Building capacity for adoption & sustained Implementation of evidence-based practices
Sustaining Change
• Know your basics
• Implement with fidelity
• Give priority to what matters
• Know your outcomes
• Integrate for efficiency
• Build durable capacity
Questions
Who is he?
www.pbis.org
PBIS Center schools by state--September 2007
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
AR IN ME MS NE OK VT ID UT AK RI NJ NV SD WI
CT MA ND PA DC KS AZ VA WA TX MN WY IA CA DE NM NH KY GA SC WV TN MT AL MO OH HI FL MI CO LA NY OR MD NC IL
# of s
choo
ls
Alt./Ctr.
High
Mid/Jr.
Elem
ECH
PRE SCH
ELEM(K-6)
MID(6-9)
HS(9-12)
ALT-JJ
145 4043 1465 708 3117138 schools across 45 states (3/08)
Over 110,000 public schools…..6.4%!!
www.cber.org
What is RtI?Basics
RtI
RtI: Good “IDEiA” PolicyApproach or framework for redesigning
& establishing teaching & learning environments that are effective,
efficient, relevant, & durable for all students, families & educators
• NOT program, curriculum, strategy, intervention
• NOT limited to special education
• NOT new
Quotable Fixsen • “Policy is
– Allocation of limited resources for unlimited needs”
– Opportunity, not guarantee, for good action”
• “Training does not predict action”
– “Manualized treatments have created overly rigid & rapid applications”
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
IndividualizedSystems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
~80% of Students
~15%
~5%
CONTINUUM OFSCHOOL-WIDE
INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
1-5% 1-5%
5-10% 5-10%
80-90% 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
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
RtI Application Examples
EARLY READING/LITERACY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
TEAMGeneral educator, special
educator, reading specialist, Title I, school psychologist, etc.
General educator, special educator, behavior specialist, Title I, school
psychologist, etc.
UNIVERSAL SCREENING
Curriculum based measurement SSBD, record review, gating
PROGRESS MONITORING
Curriculum based measurementODR, suspensions, behavior incidents, precision teaching
EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS
5-specific reading skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension
Direct social skills instruction, positive reinforcement, token economy, active supervision, behavioral contracting,
group contingency management, function-based support, self-
management
DECISION MAKING RULES
Core, strategic, intensive Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers
Responsiveness to Intervention
Academic+
Social Behavior
All
Some
FewRTI
Continuum of Support for
ALL
Dec 7, 2007
Questions to Ponder• What is “scientifically/evidence-based”
intervention/practice?
• How do we measure & ensure “fidelity of implementation?”
• How do we determine “non-responsiveness?”
• Can we affect “teacher practice?”
• Do we have motivation to increase efficiency of “systems” organization?
• ???
What is SWPBS?
Implementation Levels
Student
Classroom
School
State
District
SWPBS Conceptual Foundations
Behaviorism
ABA
PBS
SWPBS
SW-PBS Logic!Successful individual student behavior support is linked to host environments or school climates that are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
SWPBS is about….
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT PREVENTING VIOLENCE?
• Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence (2001)
• Coordinated Social Emotional & Learning (Greenberg et al., 2003)
• Center for Study & Prevention of Violence (2006)
• White House Conference on School Violence (2006)
• Positive, predictable school-wide climate
• High rates of academic & social success
• Formal social skills instruction
• Positive active supervision & reinforcement
• Positive adult role models
• Multi-component, multi-year school-family-community effort
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingStudent Behavior
OUTCOMES
Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement
SupportingDecisionMaking
Basics: 4 PBS
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
IndividualizedSystems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
~80% of Students
~15%
~5%
CONTINUUM OFSCHOOL-WIDE
INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
~80% of Students
~15%
~5%
CONTINUUM of SWPBS
SECONDARY PREVENTION• Check in/out• Targeted social skills instruction• Peer-based supports• Social skills club•
TERTIARY PREVENTION• Function-based support• Wraparound/PCP• Special Education• •
PRIMARY PREVENTION• Teach & encourage positive SW expectations• Proactive SW discipline• Effective instruction• Parent engagement•
Audit
1.Identify existing practices by tier
2.Specify outcome for each effort
3.Evaluate implementation accuracy & outcome effectiveness
4.Eliminate/integrate based on outcomes
5.Establish decision rules (RtI)
Classroom
SWPBSSubsystems
Non-classroomFamily
Student
School-w
ide
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
School-wide
• Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged
• Active supervision by all staff– Scan, move, interact
• Precorrections & reminders
• Positive reinforcement
Non-classroom
• Classroom-wide positive expectations taught & encouraged
• Teaching classroom routines & cues taught & encouraged
• Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adult-student interaction
• Active supervision• Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors• Frequent precorrections for chronic errors• Effective academic instruction & curriculum
Classroom
• Behavioral competence at school & district levels
• Function-based behavior support planning
• Team- & data-based decision making
• Comprehensive person-centered planning & wraparound processes
• Targeted social skills & self-management instruction
• Individualized instructional & curricular accommodations
Individual Student
• Continuum of positive behavior support for all families
• Frequent, regular positive contacts, communications, & acknowledgements
• Formal & active participation & involvement as equal partner
• Access to system of integrated school & community resources
Family
Who does SWPBS look
like?
School Rules
NO FoodNO Weapons
NO Backpacks
NO Drugs/Smoking
NO Bullying
Redesign Learning & Teaching Environment
Saying & doing it “Positively!”
Keep off the grass!
LC: Expectations & behavioral skills are taught & recognized in natural context
SETTING
All Settings
Hallways Playgrounds CafeteriaLibrary/
Computer Lab
Assembly Bus
Respect Ourselves
Be on task.Give your best effort.
Be prepared.
Walk. Have a plan.
Eat all your food.Select healthy foods.
Study, read,
compute.
Sit in one spot.
Watch for your stop.
Respect Others
Be kind.Hands/feet
to self.Help/share
with others.
Use normal voice
volume.Walk to
right.
Play safe.Include others.Share
equipment.
Practice good table manners
Whisper.Return books.
Listen/watch.Use
appropriate applause.
Use a quiet voice.
Stay in your seat.
Respect Property
Recycle.Clean up after self.
Pick up litter.
Maintain physical space.
Use equipment properly.
Put litter in garbage can.
Replace trays &
utensils.Clean up
eating area.
Push in chairs.Treat books
carefully.
Pick up.Treat chairs appropriately
.
Wipe your feet.Sit
appropriately.
TEACHING MATRIX
Expectations & behavioral skills are taught & recognized in natural context
Exp
ecta
tions
Acknowledge & Recognize
SWPBS Outcomes?
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06
To
tal O
DR
s
Academic Years
FRMS Total Office Discipline Referrals
SUSTAINED IMPACTPre
Post
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mea
n P
ropo
rtio
n of
S
tude
nts
Met SET (N = 23) Not Met SET (N =12)
Central Illinois Elem, Middle SchoolsTriangle Summary 03-04
6+ ODR
2-5 ODR
0-1 ODR
84% 58%
11%
22%
05%20%
SWPBS schools are more preventive
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)
0-1 '2-5 '6+
3%8%
89%
10%
16%
74%
11%
18%
71%
K=6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)
Mean Proportion of Students
ODR rates vary by level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)Percentage of ODRs by Student Group
'0-1 '2-5 '6+
K-6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)
32%
43%
25%
48%
37%
15%
45%
40%
15%
A few kids get many ODRs
Bethel School District ODR's by Grade Level
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grade Level
Num
ber o
f OD
R's 2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 BL CI/CO
CI/CO +75%
CI/CO +80%
CI/CO +90%
Helena
School Days
Per
cen
t of
Int
erva
ls E
nga
ged
in P
robl
em
B
ehav
ior
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jade
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Farrell
Began meds.
Class B Results
Fairbanks,Sugai, Gardino,& Lathrop, 2007.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 BL CI/CO
CI/CO +75%
CI/CO +80%
CI/CO +90%
Helena
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jade
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Farrell
Began meds.
School Days
Per
cen
t of
Int
erva
ls E
nga
ged
in P
robl
em
Beh
avi
or
Class B Results + Composite Peers
Peer
Peer
Peer
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ben
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Marcellus
BL CI/CO
CI/CO75%
CI/CO80%
FB plan
FB plan 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Blair
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Olivia
Per
cen
t of
Int
erva
ls E
nga
ged
in P
robl
em
Beh
avi
or
Study 2 Results
School Days
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Olivia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Marcellus
BL CI/CO
CI/CO75%
CI/CO80%
FB plan
FB plan 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ben
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Blair
School Days
Per
cen
t of
Int
erva
ls E
nga
ged
in P
robl
em
Beh
avi
or
Peer
Peer
Peer
Peer
Study 2 Results + Composite Peer