Response to Intervention: What’s Behavior Got to Do with It? George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS...
-
Upload
gwendolyn-mcdaniel -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Response to Intervention: What’s Behavior Got to Do with It? George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS...
Response to Intervention: What’s Behavior Got to Do
with It?
George SugaiOSEP Center on PBIS
Center for Behavioral Education & ResearchUniversity of Connecticut
May 25 2011
www.pbis.org www.scalingup.org www.cber.org
PURPOSE
Describe features, practices,
research, & examples related
to RtI, PBIS, & pre-/in-service
professional development
RESEARCH & THEORY to
* Responsiveness to intervention
* Positive behavioral interventions & supports
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT to
* Evidence-based practice
* Classroom management
* School discipline
* Disability & diversity
PRACTICE
* Implementation fidelity
* Evaluation
“BIG PICTURE”
Describe how PBIS got start
Review PBIS & RtI definition & features
Link outcomes, data, practices, & systems
Describe examples
Model evidence-based approach
Stress importance of implementation fidelity
Remember IHE audience
“Notes to Self”
Foundations of
Positive Behavioral
Interventions &
Supports
1980s SW
Discipline Problem
Reactive
Non-constructive
Emphasis on punishment
Poor implementation
fidelity
Limited effects
Special
Education &
BD
“Abbreviated” SWPBS History
1980s RTC
1988 PBS
1991 Proj PREPARE
1997 EBS Demo 1997 IDEA-r
1998 PBIS-I
2000 PBIS TA Guide
2001 OR Beh Res Ctr 2002 PBIS-II
2004 PBS Impl Blue
2007 SISEP
2008 PBIS-IIIJan 2010
SWPBS Eval Blue
Mar 2010 SWPBS Impl
Blue
May 2010 SWPBS Train
Blue
2011 Implementation Sustainability &
Scaling
SWPBS FoundationsColvin, G., & Sugai, G. (1992). School-wide discipline: A behavior instruction model. 1992 Oregon conference monograph. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and solutions. In J. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.). The Oregon conference monograph (Vol. 6) (pp. 102-120). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Colvin, G., Kame’enui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with behavior problems in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., 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, 193-256.
“Big Ideas” from Early Years
Teach & recognize behavior directly, school-wide
• Colvin & Sugai (1992)
Focus adult behavior in team-based SW action planning
• Colvin, Kame’enui, & Sugai (1993)
Consider ALL as foundation for some by establishing local behavioral expertise• Sugai & Horner (1994)
Integrate evidence-based practices in 3-tiered prevention logic• Walker, Horner, Sugai, Bullis, Sprague, Bricker, & Kaufman (1996)
“Early Triangle”
(p. 201)Walker, Knitzer,
Reid, et al., CDC
Prevention Logic for AllWalker et al., 1996
Decrease development
of new problem
behaviors
Prevent worsening of
existing problem
behaviors
Eliminate triggers &
maintainers of problem
behaviors
Teach, monitor, &
acknowledge prosocial behavior
Redesign of teaching environments…not students
Changing Adult Behavior
1.
“Change is slow,
difficult, gradual process
for teachers
2.
“Teachers need to receive regular
feedback on student learning
outcomes”
3.
“Continued support & follow-up
are necessary after initial training”
Guskey, 1986, p. 59
SWPBS Logic!Successful individual student behavior support is linked to host environments or school climates that are effective, efficient, relevant, durable, salable, & logical for all students(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
• Achieve desired outcome?Effective
• Doable by real implementer?Efficient
• Contextual & cultural?Relevant
• Lasting?Durable
• Transportable?Scalable
• Conceptually Sound?Logical
Host Environment Features
VIOLENCE PREVENTION
Positive predictable school-wide
climate High rates academic &
social success
Formal social skills instruction
Positive active supervision & reinforcement
Positive adult role models
Multi-component, multi-year school-family-community
effort PREVENTION SCIENCE
LITERATURE
• 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)
SWPBS (aka PBIS/RtI) is for enhancing adoption & implementation of
Continuum of evidence-based interventions to achieve
Academically & behaviorally important outcomes for
All students
Framework
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingStudent Behavior
OUTCOMES
Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement
SupportingDecisionMaking
IntegratedElements
Response-to-Intervention
&
Positive Behavioral
Interventions & Supports
Need for
better
Data-based
decision making
Early & timely
decision making
Comprehensive screening
Support for non-
responders
Implementation Fidelity
Instructional accountability & justification
Assessment-instruction alignment
Resource & time
use
RtI: Good “IDEA” Policy
Approach 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
educationNOT new
EARLY INFLUENCES
CBMEarly
Screening & Intervention
Prereferral Interventions
Teacher Assistance TeamingDiagnostic
Prescriptive Teaching
Behavioral & Instructional Consultation
Applied Behavior Analysis
Precision Teaching
IMPLEMENTATION W/ FIDELITY
CONTINUUM OF EVIDENCE-BASEDINTERVENTIONS
CONTENT EXPERTISE &
FLUENCY
TEAM-BASED IMPLEMENTATION
CONTINUOUSPROGRESS
MONITORING
UNIVERSAL SCREENING
DATA-BASEDDECISION MAKING
& PROBLEM SOLVING
RtI
Quotable Fixsen on Policy
“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”
SOUNDS
SIMPLE, BUT
IMPLICATIONS
FOR….
Curricular & instructional
decisions Special education functioning
General education functioning
Measurement, assessment, &
evaluation
Implementation accountability
Families & community interactions
Questions to PonderWhat 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?
???
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 measurement ODR, 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
Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 13, 3-16.
Burke, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., & Sugai, G. (2003). The efficacy of function-based interventions for students with learning disabilities who exhibit escape-maintained problem behavior: Preliminary results from a single case study. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26, 15-25.
McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 146-154.
McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., and Braun, D. H. (2008). Reading skills and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education, 42, 131-147.
Nelson, J. R., Johnson, A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53-62.
Wang, C., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Rethinking the relationship between reading and behavior in early elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 100-109.
Academic-Behavior Connection
“Viewed as outcomes, achievement and
behavior are related; viewed as causes of
each other, achievement and behavior are
unrelated. In this context, teaching behavior
as relentlessly as we teach reading or other
academic content is the ultimate act of
prevention, promise, and power underlying
PBS and other preventive interventions in
America’s schools.”
Algozzine, Wang, & Violette (2011), p. 16.
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
Responsiveness to Intervention
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
Circa 1996
RTIIntegrated Continuum
Mar 10 2010
Academic Continuum
Behavior Continuum
Etc.
Literacy & Writing
Numeracy &
SciencesSWPBS
Specials
Social Sciences
Responsiveness to Intervention
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
ALL
SOME
FEW
Universal
Targeted
Intensive
All
Some
FewContinuum of Support for
ALL
Dec 7, 2007
Universal
Targeted
IntensiveContinuum of
Support for ALL“Theora”
Dec 7, 2007
Science
Soc Studies
Reading
Math
Soc skills
Basketball
Spanish
Label behavior…not people
~80% of Students
~5%
ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS
SECONDARY PREVENTION• Check in/out• Targeted social skills
instruction• Peer-based supports• Social skills club•
TERTIARY PREVENTION• Function-based support• Wraparound• Person-centered planning• •
PRIMARY PREVENTION• Teach SW expectations• Proactive SW discipline• Positive reinforcement• Effective instruction• Parent engagement•
SECONDARY PREVENTION• • • • •
TERTIARY PREVENTION• • • • •
PRIMARY PREVENTION• • • • • •
~15%
CONTEXTor
SETTING
Teacher Practice
Student Behavior
School Reform
District Operations
Continua of Responsiveness
& Support
MessageApply RtI Logic to School Improvement
- Current Practice -• Large # priorities
• Large # interventions
• Large professional development plan
• Large data collection plan
+ Rti Logic +• Screening for
unresponsiveness
• Small # priorities
• Continuous progress monitoring
• Continuous implementation fidelity
• Increase priority teaching & learning time
Adopting an
Implementation
Framework
Problem Statement
“We give schools strategies & systems for improving practice & outcomes, but implementation is not accurate, consistent, or durable, & desired outcomes aren’t realized. School personnel & teams need more than exposure, practice, & enthusiasm.”
Funding Visibility PolicyPoliticalSupport
Training CoachingBehavioral Expertise
Evaluation
LEADERSHIP TEAM(Coordination)
Local School/District Implementation Demonstrations
SWPBS Implementation
Blueprint
www.pbis.org
Agreements
Team
Data-based Action Plan
ImplementationEvaluation
GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS: “Getting Started”
44
1 2 3 40
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
96
182
473
614
# WI Trained School Jul 2009 - Jan 2011
Jul ‘09 Jan ‘10 Jul ‘10 Jan ’11
• 614 trained schools (149 districts)
• 448 (73% of 614) implementing (SAS/TIC/BoQ)
• 129 (28.8% of 448) implementing w/ fidelity (SAS/TIC/BoQ)
PreK Elementary Middle High Alternative Multilevel0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
22
316
10276
12
86
# WI Trained Schools Jan 2011 by Level
1 2 3 40
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
# WI Schools by Year & Level 2009-2011
Multilevel
Alternative
High
Middle
Elementary
PreK
Jul ‘09 Jan ‘10 Jul ‘10 Jan ’11
Are outcomes
measurable?
Where are you in implementation process?Adapted from Fixsen & Blase, 2005
• We think we know what we need, so we ordered 3 month free trial (evidence-based)
EXPLORATION & ADOPTION
• Let’s make sure we’re ready to implement (capacity infrastructure)
INSTALLATION
• Let’s give it a try & evaluate (demonstration)
INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION
• That worked, let’s do it for real (investment)
FULL IMPLEMENTATION
• Let’s make it our way of doing business (institutionalized use)
SUSTAINABILITY & CONTINUOUS
REGENERATION
SWPBS Implementation “Infidelity”
“SWPBS is intervention”
“Let’s schedule Rob Horner for our in-service day”
“Let’s do SWPBS during morning advisory”
“Can I visit your school & see SWPBS in action?”
“SWPBS is about giving kids tangible rewards”
“She’s a tier 3 kid; give her 2 day suspension”
“Shut up, & show me some respect”
Implementation
ChallengeLack of expert
capacity
Competing initiatives
Lacking implementation
framework
Nondata-based decision making Insufficient
resources
Limited differentiation
No theory of action or change
Evidence-based Practices
&
Implementation Fidelity
Detrich, Keyworth, & States (2007). J. Evid.-based Prac. in Sch.
Startw/
What Works
Focus on Fidelity
“Making a turn”
IMPLEMENTATION
Effective Not Effective
PRACTICE
Effective
Not Effective
Maximum Student Benefits
Fixsen & Blase, 2009
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.
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.
RCT & Group Design PBIS Studies
• Reduced major disciplinary infractions
• Improvements in academic achievement
• Enhanced perception of organizational health
& safety• Improved school climate• Reductions in teacher reported bullying
behavior
Classroom
SWPBSPractices
Non-classroom Family
Student & Family
School-w
ide
• Smallest #• Evidence-based
• Biggest, durable effect
SCHOOL-WIDE1.1. Leadership team
2.Behavior purpose statement
3.Set of positive expectations & behaviors
4.Procedures for teaching SW & classroom-wide expected behavior
5.Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected behavior
6.Continuum of procedures for discouraging rule violations
7.Procedures for on-going data-based monitoring & evaluation
EVIDENCE-BASED
INTERVENTIONPRACTICES
CLASSROOM1.All school-wide2.Maximum structure & predictability in routines & environment3.Positively stated expectations posted, taught, reviewed, prompted, & supervised.4.Maximum engagement through high rates of opportunities to respond, delivery of evidence-based instructional curriculum & practices5.Continuum of strategies to acknowledge displays of appropriate behavior.6.Continuum of strategies for responding to inappropriate behavior.
INDIVIDUAL STUDENT1.Behavioral competence at school & district levels
2.Function-based behavior support planning
3.Team- & data-based decision making
4.Comprehensive person-centered planning & wraparound processes
5.Targeted social skills & self-management instruction
6. Individualized instructional & curricular accommodations
NONCLASSROOM1.Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged
2.Active supervision by all staff (Scan, move, interact)
3.Precorrections & reminders
4.Positive reinforcement
FAMILY ENGAGEMENT1.Continuum of positive behavior support for all families
2.Frequent, regular positive contacts, communications, & acknowledgements
3.Formal & active participation & involvement as equal partner
4.Access to system of integrated school & community resources
1. Leadership team
2. Behavior purpose statement
3. Set of positive expectations & behaviors
4. Procedures for teaching SW & classroom-wide expected behavior
5. Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected behavior
6. Continuum of procedures for discouraging rule violations
7. Procedures for on-going data-based monitoring & evaluation
School-wide
~80% of Students
~5%
ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS
SECONDARY PREVENTION• Check in/out• Targeted social skills
instruction• Peer-based supports• Social skills club•
TERTIARY PREVENTION• Function-based support• Wraparound• Person-centered planning• •
PRIMARY PREVENTION• Teach SW expectations• Proactive SW discipline• Positive reinforcement• Effective instruction• Parent engagement•
~15%
Teacher__________________________ Rater_______________________
Date___________
Instructional Activity Time Start_______
Time End________
Tally each Positive Student Contacts
Total # Tally each Negative Student Contacts
Total #
Ratio of Positives to Negatives: _____ to 1
Classroom Management: Self-Assessment
Classroom Management Practice Rating
1. I have arranged my classroom to minimize crowding and distraction Yes No
2. I have maximized structure and predictability in my classroom (e.g., explicit classroom routines, specific directions, etc.).
Yes No
3. I have posted, taught, reviewed, and reinforced 3-5 positively stated expectations (or rules).
Yes No
4. I provided more frequent acknowledgement for appropriate behaviors than inappropriate behaviors (See top of page).
Yes No
5. I provided each student with multiple opportunities to respond and participate during instruction.
Yes No
6. My instruction actively engaged students in observable ways (e.g., writing, verbalizing) Yes No
7. I actively supervised my classroom (e.g., moving, scanning) during instruction. Yes No
8. I ignored or provided quick, direct, explicit reprimands/redirections in response to inappropriate behavior.
Yes No
9. I have multiple strategies/systems in place to acknowledge appropriate behavior (e.g., class point systems, praise, etc.).
Yes No
10. In general, I have provided specific feedback in response to social and academic behavior errors and correct responses.
Yes No
Overall classroom management score:
10-8 “yes” = “Super” 7-5 “yes” = “So-So” <5 “yes” = “Improvement Needed”# Yes___
Name______________________________ Date_____________
Setting □ Hallway □ Entrance □ Cafeteria
□ Playground □ Other_______________Time Start_________
Time End _________
Tally each Positive Student Contacts Total #
Ratio of Positives to Negatives: _____: 1Tally each Negative Student Contacts Total #
Non-Classroom Management: Self-Assessment
1. Did I have at least 4 positive for 1 negative student contacts? Yes No
2. Did I move throughout the area I was supervising? Yes No
3. Did I frequently scan the area I was supervising? Yes No
4. Did I positively interact with most of the students in the area? Yes No
5. Did I handle most minor rule violations quickly and quietly? Yes No
6. Did I follow school procedures for handling major rule violations? Yes No
7. Do I know our school-wide expectations (positively stated rules)? Yes No
8. Did I positively acknowledge at least 5 different students for displaying our school-wide expectations?
Yes No
Overall active supervision score:
7-8 “yes” = “Super Supervision”
5-6 “yes” = “So-So Supervision”
<5 “yes” = “Improvement Needed”
# Yes______
Some Data
Educationally relevant outcomes
Implementation fidelity
Clearly defined & relevant indicators
System for easy input & output
Data rules for decision making
Team-based mechanism for action planning
Dat
a D
ecis
ion
Mak
ing