Impacting Outcomes for Students with the Most Challenging Behaviors through Schoolwide PBS: OSEP’s Model Demonstration Projects Lucille Eber, Statewide Director Illinois Statewide Technical Assistance Center PBIS Network Jennifer Doolittle, Project Officer Office of Special Education Programs
Timeline of OSEP’s PBS Investments • 1997: IDEA reauthorized • 1998: OSEP funds the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). • Provides a framework for schoolwide behavior support practices • 2002: OSEP funds the Center for Evidence-based Practice: Young Children with Challenging Behavior • 2004: “PBS Blueprint for Practice” emphasizes developing State and district level infrastructures that can promote large-scale implementation and sustainability • 2006: Tertiary Behavior Model Demonstration Sites • 2008: Technical Assistance Center for Social-Emotional Intervention for Young Children (TACSEI) • Scaling up evidence-based behavior support practices at the preschool level • IDEA performance measures for social-emotional outcome for birth to five • The Future • Continue to scale-up school-wide PBS • Assist schools to identify and implement more tertiary-level, intensive behavior support strategies.
OSEP’s Model Demonstration Projects (MDPs) • Model Demonstration Coordinating Center • Creating cross-site evaluation plans, instruments, and procedures to assess the context, implementation, and efficacy of each model and across models within a cohort. • Identifying key issues in translating research to practice and analyzing and synthesizing data across MDPs and cohorts • Applying multiple analytic methods to answer evaluation questions regarding both the efficacy of models and bridging the gap between research and practice. • Producing high-quality, useful, and accessible products that communicate findings to key audiences.
Cohorts • Each year a new cohort of three to four MDPs is added; each cohort has a different focus: • 2006: 1st cohort is focusing on progress monitoring for preschool through 4th grade in general and special education classrooms. • 2007: 2nd cohort is developing tertiary behavior interventions for elementary/middle schools for students with challenging behaviors. • 2008: 3rd cohort will develop, implement and evaluate early childhood language interventions. • Documenting model development, model implementation, and model outcomes for each cohort, and analyzing MDP experiences and results across cohorts • Help OSEP bridge the gap between identifying evidence-based practices and achieving their widespread use.
Tertiary Behavior MDPs • Illinois PBIS Network and the University of Kansas • The University of Oregon • The University of Washington
Tertiary Behavior MDPs Big Ideas • School-wide intensive PBS approach guided by a three-tiered prevention model • Individualized, function-based behavior support to children who exhibit the most challenging behaviors and have not been responsive to primary or secondary prevention efforts • Emphasis on collecting and using data for decision-making • Systematic strategies for professional development • TA that improves student behavior to help schools promote student learning and other positive outcomes • Cost effective and efficient process for school districts to implement and sustain • A response to intervention (RtI) logic model to show student progress
RTI for Behavior and Academics • Key components • Evidence-based instruction and supports for all students • Universal screening to determine which students are not meeting benchmarks • Targeted instruction and support that goes beyond what all students receive • Progress monitoring • Intensive and individualized instruction and support for students who are still not making progress - special education? • Decision points throughout
The Kansas-Illinois SW-PBS Tertiary Demonstration Center: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Continuum of Support Model CEC Boston April 4, 2008 Lucille Eber, Illinois PBISNetwork Wayne Sailor, University of Kansas
Jamie Bezdek, University of Kansas Kimberli Breen, IL PBIS Network Jen Rose, Loyola University-IL PBIS Network Amy McCart, University of Kansas Evaluation: Kelly Hyde (SIMEO) Holly Lewandowski (PoI and SWIS data) K-I Center Team Leaders
How the K-I Center is applying the RtI approach to both behavior and academics to ensure tertiary capacity Implementation experiences and data from IL (Year One and Year Two) What the K-I Center hope to “deliver” in terms of knowledge, tools etc. Big Ideas for this Session
Key Questions Does building a school-wide system of PBIS increase school’s abilities to effectively educate students with more complex needs? What systems, data and practice structures are needed to ensure that positive behavior support being applied in needed dosage for ALL students?
Tertiary Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • High Intensity • Tertiary Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • Intense, durable procedures • Secondary Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Small Group Interventions • Some Individualizing • Secondary Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Small Group Interventions • Some Individualizing • Universal Interventions • All students • Preventive, proactive • Universal Interventions • All settings, all students • Preventive, proactive School-Wide Systems for Student SuccessA Response to Intervention Model Academic Systems Behavioral Systems 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% 80-90% 80-90%
Secondary Tertiary Positive Behavior Interventions & SupportsA Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems Small group interventions (CICO, SSI, etc) SWIS & other School-wide data Intervention Assessment Group interventions with individualized focus (CnC, etc) BEP & group Intervention data Simple individual interventions (Simple FBA/BIP, schedule/curriculum changes, etc) Functional assessment tools/ Observations/scatter plots etc. Multiple-domain FBA/BIP Wraparound Revised March 2008 IL-PBIS Adapted from T. Scott, 2004 SIMEO tools: HSC-T, RD-T 3.5.08
Investment in prevention Universal Screening Early intervention for students not at “benchmark” Multi-tiered, prevention-based intervention approach Progress monitoring Use of problem-solving process at all 3-tiers Active use of data for decision-making at all 3-tiers Research-based practices expected at all 3-tiers Individualized interventions commensurate with assessed level of need Core Features of a Response to Intervention (RtI) Approach
Group interventions (BEP, social or academic skills groups, tutor/homework clubs, etc) Group Intervention with aunique feature for an individual student, (BEP individualized into a Check & Connect; mentoring/tutoring, etc.) Simple Individualized Function Based Behavior Support Plan for a student focused on one specific behavior (simple FBA/BIP-one behavior; curriculum adjustment; schedule or other environmental adjustments, etc) Complex Function-based Behavior Support Plan across settings (i.e.: FBA/BIP home and school and/or community) Wraparound: More complex and comprehensive plan that address multiple life domain issues across home, school and community (i.e. basic needs, MH treatment, as well as behavior/academic interventions) multiple behaviors Continuum of Support for Secondary-Tertiary Level Systems 3.8.08
The Context for Implementing the Tertiary Demo process…… ILLINOS SW-PBS History
IL PBIS Schools Over Nine Years: Trained & Partially or Fully Implementing Implementing Tertiary Demos:The IL Context for
IL PBIS Expansion History June 30, 2005 • 444 schools in 143 districts • 92 new schools trained June 30, 2006 • 520 schools in 155 Districts • 97 new schools trained in FY06 • 12 new districts June 30, 2007 • 654 schools in 170 • 72 schools trained in FY07 • 15 new districts January, 2008 • 744 Schools in 196 Districts • Approximately 90 schools trained in 1st half of FY08 • Approximately 26 new districts in 1st half of FY08
Illinois PBIS Schools Mean Percentage of Students with Major ODRs 2006-07, Statewide The differences between fully and partially implementing schools were statistically significant in all three levels of ODRs (0-1 ODR, Mann-Whitney U=3035.0, p=0.004; 2-5 ODR, Mann-Whitney U=3050.0, p=0.005; 6+ODR, Mann-Whitney U=3062.0, p=0.005).
Illinois PBIS Schools Illinois PBIS Schools Completing School Profile Forms & Implementing Secondary/Tertiary Interventions across Five Years
Comparison of Partial & Fully Implementing Schools on Suspensions/Expulsions FY07 per 100 Students Illinois PBIS Schools
Comparing School Safety Survey Partial vs. Full Implementation Illinois PBIS Schools
Illinois PBIS Schools Illinois 2005-06 Proportion of Students who Meet or Exceed Third Grade ISAT Reading Standard The difference between the two types of schools was significant (t=3.72, df=159, p<0.001).
Illinois PBIS Schools Illinois 2005-06 Proportion of Schools that Met AYP Findings suggest that fully implementing PBIS schools met AYP at a significantly higher percentage than partially implementing schools (χ2=19.17, df=1, p<.001).
Small Group & Individual Interventions Rated "High" or "Very High" in Fully & Partially Implementing PBIS Schools 2006-07 Illinois PBIS Schools
Small Group Interventions Rated as "Very High” & "High“ in Fully & Partially Implementing PBIS Schools 2006-07 Illinois PBIS Schools
Individual Interventions Rated “Very High” & “High” in Fully & Partially Implementing PBIS Schools 2006-07 Illinois PBIS Schools
SIMEO Database (Systematic Information Management of Education Outcomes) Technical Features: Database Development online data collection and graphing database system for individual student receiving intensive level planning and supports
Tertiary Demos Mean Percentage of Students for Tertiary Demo School A by Major ODRs 2005-06 Grades K-6 (285 students)
Tertiary Demos Mean Percentage of Students for Tertiary Demo School A by Major ODRs 2006-07 Grades K-6 (293 students)
Referrals to Sp.Ed. seen as the “intervention” beyond universals FBA seen as required “paperwork” vs. a critical step in designing effective interventions Examples of Ineffective or WeakSecondary/Tertiary Systems
Low intensity, low fidelity interventions for behavior/emotional needs Habitual use of restrictive settings (and poor outcomes) for youth with disabilities High rate of undiagnosed MH problems (stigma, lack of knowledge, etc) Changing the routines of ineffective practices (systems) that are “familiar” to systems Some “Big Picture” Challenges?
ISBE is investing ICMHP is investing USDOE-OSEP is investing Investing in Tertiary Demos? Tertiary Demos We need replicable Systems, Data, and Practices so we can effect long term change.
Notable progress was observed in tertiary demo schools’ implementation of PBIS. Building-based teams met frequently to action plan and significant gains were made during year one. The Illinois PBIS Phases of Implementation Tool is being used by schools to self-assess their systems, data and practices and guide their implementation. As schools invest in developing tertiary structures, they are also taking steps to improve their universal and secondary systems. A Focus on Tertiary Impacts Implementation at All Levels
Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases Simple Secondary Interventions IL Tertiary Demo *CICO = Check in, Check Out
Three year pilot Enhance SOC wraparound approach data-based decision-making as part of wraparound intervention Development of strength-needs data tools Web-based system Results of Implementation of Wraparound within SW-PBS in IL Wraparound
IL PBIS Tertiary Demos-07 Tertiary Interventions Linked to Immediate & Sustainable ODR Decreases
High Risk Low/No Risk (n = 19) Wraparound-07 Immediate & Sustainable Change Noted in Placement Risk
Wraparound-07 School Risk Behaviors Substantially Decline for Student Engaged in Wrap Avg # of episodes
Always Never IL Wraparound Data-07 Positive Classroom Behavior & Academic Achievement Linked
IL PBIS Tertiary Demos Shift in Responsibility for Individual Student Data Management at Tertiary Demo Sites
“Andy”Using Data to Keep the Team Moving“Celebrate Success of current plan”
Team will use data to plan for academic supports. Lower intensity of some supports Transition from frequent adult feedback to self-monitoring to boost self-confidence and feel/be less dependent on adults. “Andy”Next Steps
0 ODRs (from 3) 0 Time-outs (from 22) Passing grades in all classes (from D’s & F’s) Parents report that: “this is different” Improved partnerships with community service providers MH partner participating and providing effective strategies “AJ”
“Henry”, an elementary school student, had: extremely poor attendance failing grades poor homework completion trouble with the law in the community and had a court assigned probation officer and a mandated Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) counselor “Henry”Reason Referred to Tertiary Supports