Leadership in Implementing School-wide PBIS February 27
description
Transcript of Leadership in Implementing School-wide PBIS February 27
Leadership in Implementing School-wide PBIS
February 27
Rob HornerUniversity of OregonOSEP TA-Center on PBISwww.pbis.org
Goals
• Goals• Define current status of SWPBIS implementation• Define lessons learned about effective leadership in
implementation of SWPBIS.• Define role of the Implementation Blueprint• Detail how the collection and use of data affects implementation
of SWPBIS• Provide opportunity for questions.
Themes Affecting Education:Multi-tiered Systems, Evidence-based Practices, Implementation Science
Performance Assessment (Fidelity)
Coaching
Training
Selection
Systems Intervention
Facilitative Administration
Decision Support Data System
Com
pete
ncy
Organization
Effective Implementation
Multi-tiered Systems of Support
Evidence-based Practices
Implementation Science
AdaptiveTechnical
Leadership Drivers
School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS)
• The social culture of a school matters.
• A continuum of supports that begins with the whole school and extends to intensive, wraparound support for individual students and their families.
• Effective practices with the systems needed for high fidelity and sustainability
• Multiple tiers of intensity
What is School-wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support?
• School-wide PBIS is:• A framework for establishing the social culture and
behavioral supports needed for a school to achieve behavioral and academic outcomes for all students.
• Evidence-based features of SWPBIS• Prevention• Define and teach positive social expectations• Acknowledge positive behavior• Arrange consistent consequences for problem behavior• On-going collection and use of data for decision-making• Continuum of intensive, individual intervention supports. • Implementation of the systems that support effective
practices
Why SWPBIS?
•The fundamental purpose of SWPBIS is to make schools more effective learning environments.
Predictable
Consistent
Positive
Safe
Experimental Research on SWPBIS
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), 100-115
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). The impact of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462-473.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133-148.
Bradshaw, C.P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K.B., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26.
Bradshaw, C., Waasdorp, T., Leaf. P., (in press). Effects of School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems and adjustment. Pediatrics.
Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J., (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133-145.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), 1-14.
Ross, S. W., Endrulat, N. R., & Horner, R. H. (2012). Adult outcomes of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. 14(2) 118-128.Waasdorp, T., Bradshaw, C., & Leaf , P., (2012) The Impact of Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Bullying and Peer Rejection: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial. Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. 2012;166(2):149-156
SWPBIS Experimentally Related to:1. Reduction in problem behavior2. Increased academic performance3. Increased attendance4. Improved perception of safety5. Reduction in bullying behaviors6. Improved organizational efficiency
7. Reduction in staff turnover8. Increased perception of teacher efficacy9. Improved Social Emotional competence
Summary of Research• School-wide PBIS is an evidence-based practice
• Implementation is related to improved academic and social behavior.
• Tier I SWPBIS can be implemented with fidelity by any school in the U.S. without new resources or dramatic reorganization.• Successful Schools:
• Define a clear commitment to school-wide social culture• Add data systems (fidelity and Student Outcomes)• Provide the leadership to allow effective team-based decision-
making.
• Tier II and Tier III supports will require more adaptation
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%
SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
27
Main Ideas:1. Invest in prevention first2. Multiple tiers of support
intensity3. Early/rapid access to
support
Remember that the multiple tiers of support refer to our SUPPORT not Students.
Avoid creating a new disability labeling system.
Reading
Behavior
Math
Health
Number of Schools Implementing SWPBIS since 2000
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10' 11' 12' 13'0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
19,054
Count of School Implementing SWPBIS by StateFebruary, 2013
Alab
ama
Alas
kaAr
izon
aAr
kans
as
Calif
orni
a Co
lora
do*
Conn
ectic
ut
Del
awar
eFl
orid
a*G
uam
Geo
rgia
Haw
aii
Idah
oIll
inoi
sIn
dian
aIo
wa*
Kans
as*
Kent
ucky
Loui
sian
a*M
aine
Mar
ylan
d*M
assa
chus
etts
Mic
higa
nM
inne
sota
Mis
siss
ippi
Mis
sour
i*M
onta
na*
Neb
rask
aN
evad
aN
ew H
amps
hire
New
Jers
ey*
New
Mex
ico
New
Yor
kN
orth
Car
olin
a*N
orth
Dak
ota*
Ohi
oO
klah
oma
Ore
gon*
Penn
sylv
ania
Rhod
e Is
land
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a*So
uth
Dak
ota
Tenn
esse
e Te
xas
Uta
h*Ve
rmon
tVi
rgin
ia
Was
hing
ton
Stat
eW
ashi
ngto
n D
CW
est V
irgi
nia
Wis
cons
inW
yom
ing
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Illinois14 States > 500 Schools
Arizona
Proportion of Schools Implementing SWPBIS by StateFebruary, 2013
Alab
ama
Alas
kaAr
izon
aAr
kans
as
Calif
orni
a Co
lora
do*
Conn
ectic
ut
Del
awar
eFl
orid
a*G
uam
Geo
rgia
Haw
aii
Idah
oIll
inoi
sIn
dian
aIo
wa*
Kans
as*
Kent
ucky
Loui
sian
a*M
aine
Mar
ylan
d*M
assa
chus
etts
Mic
higa
nM
inne
sota
Mis
siss
ippi
Mis
sour
i*M
onta
na*
Neb
rask
aN
evad
aN
ew H
amps
hire
New
Jers
ey*
New
Mex
ico
New
Yor
kN
orth
Car
olin
a*N
orth
Dak
ota*
Ohi
oO
klah
oma
Ore
gon*
Penn
sylv
ania
Rhod
e Is
land
Sout
h Ca
rolin
a*So
uth
Dak
ota
Tenn
esse
e Te
xas
Uta
h*Ve
rmon
tVi
rgin
ia
Was
hing
ton
Stat
eW
ashi
ngto
n D
CW
est V
irgi
nia
Wis
cons
inW
yom
ing
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
12 states over 40% of all schools implementing SWPBIS
Arizona
Using the PBIS Implementation Blueprint• Exploration• Annual Assessment• Action Planning
Leadership TeamActive Coordination
FundingVisibility Political
Support
Training Coaching Evaluation
Local School/District Teams/Demonstrations
BehavioralExpertise
Policy
Sugai et al., www.pbis.org
SWPBS Implementation Self-Assessment and Planning Tool
IMPLEMENTATION FEATURE IN PLACE STATUS
Yes Partial No Le
ader
ship
Tea
m
1. Capacity to address multi-school (district) and/or multi-district (region, state) leadership and coordination.
2. Leadership Team with representation from appropriate range of stakeholders (e.g., special education, general education, families, mental health, administration, higher education, professional development, evaluation & accountability).
3. Completion of SWPBS Implementation Blueprint self-assessment at least annually.
4. 3-5 year prevention-based action plan that delineates actions linked to each feature of the Implementation Blueprint.
5. Regular meeting schedule (at least quarterly) & meeting process (agenda, minutes, dissemination).
GOAL: District and/or state level capacity to establish, sustain, and scale-up of accurate implementation of a continuum (multi-tiered) of SWPBS across multiple schools.
Month
Activity/Action (Person/s)
Leadership/ Coordination
Coaching/ Facilitation Training Evaluation Behavioral
Expertise Funding Visibility Political Support Policy
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Dec
Jan
Action Planning:For Items not Implemented:
1. Select next action/activity (and for each action define who will perform, and when action will be accomplished). 2. The active actions become items for weekly/monthly meetings
Implementation Takes
Time: 2 – 4 Years
Explorati
on
Installa
tion
Initial
Implementation
Full
Implementati
on
Stages of Implementation
Stages of ImplementationFocus Stage Description
Exploration/ Adoption
Decision regarding commitment to adopting the program/practices and supporting successful implementation.
Installation Set up infrastructure so that successful implementation can take place and be supported. Establish team and data systems, conduct audit, develop plan.
Initial Implementation
Try out the practices, work out details, learn and improve before expanding to other contexts.
Full Implementation
Expand the program/practices to other locations, individuals, times- adjust from learning in initial implementation.
Continuous Improvement/ Regeneration
Make it easier, more efficient. Embed within current practices.
Work to do it right!
Work to do it
better!
Should we do it!
Steve Goodman
Scaling up School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports:The Experiences of Seven States with Documented SuccessRob Horner, Don Kincaid, George Sugai, Tim Lewis, Lucille Eber, Susan Barrett, Celeste Rossetto Dickey, Mary Richter, Erin Sullivan, Cyndi Boezio, Nancy Johnson
Exploration Installation Initial Imp Full Imp Innovation Sustainability
Leadership TeamFunding
Visibility
Political SupportPolicy
Training
Coaching
Expertise
Evaluation
Demos
Exploration and Adoption
Installation Initial Implementation
Full Implementation
Innovation and sustainability
Leadership Team
(coordination)
Do you have a state leadership team?
If you do, how was your first leadership team developed?
Who were members?
Who supported/lead the team through the exploration process?
Was any sort of self-assessment completed (e.g. the PBIS Implementation Blueprint Assessment)?
What was the role of State agency personnel in the exploration phase?
What were critical issues that confronted the team as it began to install systems changes?
What were specific activities the team did to ensure success of the initial implementation efforts?
Did the team change personnel or functioning as the # of schools/districts increased?
What has the Leadership team done to insure sustainability?
In what areas is the State “innovating” and contributing to the research and practice of PBIS (e.g. linking PBIS with literacy or math)?
Descriptive Summary: Oregon
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /Full Imp & Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Missouri
97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-110
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Exploration / Installation /Initial Imp / Full Imp & Innovate
Descriptive Summary: North Carolina
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Colorado
02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-110
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Florida
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-100
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Exploration/ Installation/ Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Maryland
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Illinois
98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-110
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /Full Imp & Innovate
Lessons Learned• Multiple approaches to achieving scaled implementation
• Colorado: Started with Leadership Team• Illinois: Started with Leadership Advocates and built team only after
implementation expanded.• Missouri: Strong initial demonstrations led to strong state support
• All states began with small “demonstrations” that documented the feasibility and impact of SWPBIS.
• Only when states reached 100-200 demonstrations did scaling occur. Four core features needed for scaling:
• Administrative Leadership / Support/ Funding• Technical capacity (Local training, coaching, evaluation and behavioral expertise)• Local Demonstrations of feasibility and impact (100-200)• Evaluation data system (to support continuous improvement)
• Essential role of Data: Fidelity data AND Outcome data
Lessons Learned• Scaling is NOT linear
• Sustained scaling requires continuous regeneration
• Threats to Scaling:• Competing initiatives• The seductive lure of the “new idea”• Leadership turnover• Legislative mandates• Fiscal constraint
Regular Dissemination of
Fidelity and Impact data is the best
“protective factor” for threats to
scaling
Lessons Learned• Scaling requires planned efficiency
• The unit cost of implementation must decrease as the number of adoptions increases.
• Shift from external trainers to within state/district trainers• Use local demonstrations as exemplars • Increased coaching capacity can decrease investment in training• Improved “selection” of personnel decreases turnover and
development costs• Use existing professional development and evaluation resources
differently
• Basic Message: The implementation practices that are needed to establish initial exemplars may be different from the practices used to establish large scale adoption.
• Jennifer Coffey, 2008
Effective PBIS Leadership• Define a five year vision:
• Number of districts/ schools• Extend that vision to incorporate at least 80% of all schools in the state
• Clarify role of Leadership Team• Active leadership and guidance. Not just “informational” or “consultative”• Meet regularly, carry tasks between meetings, use data• Need formal “coordinator” role… to ensure that things get done
• Establish Workgroups• Policy/ Funding• Training• Evaluation• Coordination/Communication
Summary• Leadership is essential for successful implementation of PBIS.
• Vision, Local Capacity, Assess, Adapt.
Lesson #7: Invest in Intensive Supports (Tier II, III)• Establish the organizational capacity to support students with
more severe problem behavior.
• The three areas of “knowledge” needed by a team.• Bennazi et al., (2006)
• Knowledge about student• Knowledge about context• Knowledge about behavioral theory
• The importance of understanding “function” of behavior.• Sheldon Loman and Kathleen Strickland-Cohen (2013)
• Typical school personnel can assess and manage “Basic” individual behavior challenges.
School-wide PBS• Establishing additional supports for students with more
intense needs
Behavior Support Elements
Problem Behavior
Functional Assessment
Intervention & Support Plan
Fidelity of Implementation
Impact on Behavior & Lifestyle
*Response class*Routine analysis*Hypothesis statement*Supporting data *Alternative behaviors
*Competing behavior analysis *Indicated, evidence-based interventions*Contextual fit*Strengths, preferences, & lifestyle outcomes
*Implementation support*Data plan
*Continuous improvement*Sustainability plan
• Team-based• Behavior competence
Lesson #8: Collect and use Data for Active Decision-Making• Give each team concrete measures that they can use to
determine if they are successful.
• Measure use of practices: www.pbisassessment.org • Are we doing what we want to be doing?
• Team Checklist• Benchmark of Quality• EBS Survey• SET
• Measure impact on valued outcomes• Office discipline referrals• Attendance• Suspension/Expulsion rates• Student academic achievement• Student Individual Intensive Supports