The Process of Change: Resolving Barriers to Universal Intervention Implementation Sharon Lohrmann...
-
Upload
deshawn-worland -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of The Process of Change: Resolving Barriers to Universal Intervention Implementation Sharon Lohrmann...
The Process of Change: Resolving
Barriers to Universal Intervention
Implementation
Sharon LohrmannSharon Lohrmann
Stacy MartinStacy Martin
Sonia PatilSonia Patil
Visit www.njpbs.org for handouts. Click on
Upcoming Events and Scroll to the APBS listing
Buy-In: (n.) Buy-In: (n.) Commitment to Commitment to achieving a achieving a shared goalshared goal
Successful change begins with Successful change begins with acquiring employees’ buy-in to acquiring employees’ buy-in to the change process …(the change process …(MSN MSN Encarta)Encarta)
But, what does buy-in really mean?But, what does buy-in really mean?
Buy-in and commitment to change is a dynamic
processConclusions drawn from sustainability
research: Knowing that a practice results in good outcomes is insufficient
for implementation (Gersten, Chard, & Baker 2000).
Teachers’ beliefs, feelings of self-efficacy, attitudes, and perceptions affect the extent to which teachers try new strategies and persist using them when confronted with challenges (Klinger, Ahwee, Pilonieta, Merendez, 2003).
Sustained use of innovative, research based practices seem directly related to practices that teachers view as being helpful in working with difficult-to- teach students (Gersten et al., 2000).
Teachers can benefit from on-going sources of support that helps them to think deeply about their practice (Vaughn, Klinger, & Hughes 2000).
Motivation for this Line of Motivation for this Line of ResearchResearch
• Schools in NJ are targeted based on Schools in NJ are targeted based on need for corrective actionneed for corrective action
• Schools struggle with the weight of Schools struggle with the weight of pressures to “fix the problem”pressures to “fix the problem”
• We want to understand what we can We want to understand what we can do to prevent as much of the do to prevent as much of the resistance upfront as opposed to resistance upfront as opposed to trying to reframing it in the middletrying to reframing it in the middle
Part of a Line of Research Part of a Line of Research on Attitude and Belief on Attitude and Belief
Barriers to PBSBarriers to PBS• Universal InterventionUniversal Intervention
– Lohrmann, Martin, & Patil (2007* Lohrmann, Martin, & Patil (2007* unpublished pilot)unpublished pilot)
– Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, & Palmieri Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, & Palmieri (2008)(2008)
• Individual Student PlanningIndividual Student Planning– Lohrmann & Bambara (2006)Lohrmann & Bambara (2006)– Bambara, Lohrmann, Nonnemacher, Bambara, Lohrmann, Nonnemacher,
Goh, & Kern (in progress)Goh, & Kern (in progress)
Purpose of the Study
To understand, from the perspectives of external and internal coaches: The types of barriers that interfere with
the adoption of universal interventionsThe factors that contribute to barrier
conditionsThe extent to which barriers are
resolvedThe factors/process that leads to
resolution
Procedures: Sampling Process
1. Invitation and interview with state coordinator/director for PBS initiative
• Background and Context information
2. Distribution of invitation through the state network for external coaches
3. External coach screened and identified a focus school
4. External coach interviewed5. External coach nominates the internal
coach/key school contact6. Internal coach interviewed
Recruitment Challenges
1.1. We interviewed 11 state coordinators We interviewed 11 state coordinators but recruitment efforts only produced but recruitment efforts only produced pairs from 5 of those statespairs from 5 of those states
2.2. Difficulty recruiting participantsDifficulty recruiting participants1.1. Limitations imposed by our Institutional Limitations imposed by our Institutional
Review BoardReview Board
2.2. Not a lot of response from recruitment Not a lot of response from recruitment efforts – especially school personnelefforts – especially school personnel
3.3. Harder to find implementation at the Harder to find implementation at the middle levelmiddle level
Brief Overview of StatesBrief Overview of States
State Implementation Model
Training Model
State A
•400 schools•Department of Education funding•Began in 1995/evolved to school-wide
•District initiative - @ least 3 schools•District coordinator and building level coaches•Administrator orientation•State project liaison provides training and monthly on site support to the coaches •District coordinator provides day to day support
•3 Day Summer Training•Begin with UI•Move to upper tiers based on 80% criteria and need
State B
•280 schools•Department of Education funding•Began 9 years ago
•Administrator orientation•Individual schools can apply with the intent to go “district-wide”•District and building coaches•Regional consultant provides monthly on site support to the leadership team
•Administrators attend a 1 day training•UI team attends a 3 day summer institute•Coach attends off site meetings 4x a year
Brief Overview of StatesBrief Overview of StatesState Implementation
ModelTraining Model
State C
•Department of Education & Safe /Drug Free Schools funding•Began 6 years ago
•Individual schools can apply•Two part start: administrative level buy in and staff buy in•State project staff provide training•Contracted facilitators provides monthly on site support to the school team
•Training on 3 tiers across three years•UI team receives 6 days of training distributed over 2 years
State D
•300 schools•Department of Education –Special Education funding•Began about 8 years ago
•Regional consortiums to build coaching capacity•Application process with administrator commitments•State project staff and regional consultants provide training•Regional consultants provide on site support to the school tem•District coach provides ongoing support
•2 day training the first year; 1 day training the second•Annual coaching conferences
Brief Overview of StatesBrief Overview of States
State Implementation Model
Training Model
State E
•600 schools•Department of Education funding•8 years
•District – wide initiative•Individual schools can apply•Regional consultants provide coordination and support to district coaches – sometimes also provide the training•District coaches provide training and on site support to schools
•2 Day Summer Training•Begin with UI and move to upper tiers based on need
Procedures – Inclusion Criteria
• SchoolsSchools– Middle Level 5Middle Level 5thth-8-8thth grade grade– Minimum SET/Benchmarks score of Minimum SET/Benchmarks score of
70%70%– Implementing for 1-3 years post the Implementing for 1-3 years post the
first instructional event kick offfirst instructional event kick off– Considered by external coach to have Considered by external coach to have
been a school that struggled initially been a school that struggled initially but ultimately achieved successbut ultimately achieved success
School SummarySchool Summary
• 1 - 5-6 school1 - 5-6 school• 7 - 6-8 schools7 - 6-8 schools• 1 - 7-8 school1 - 7-8 school• Average SET Score: 89% (r=80%-Average SET Score: 89% (r=80%-
99%)99%)• Mostly rural schoolsMostly rural schools
SchoolsSchoolsScho
olGrades(Studen
ts)
SET Score
Characterized as:
1 5-6(350)
80% •A rural community•Mostly Caucasian
26-8
(1500)89% •A rural community
•A rapidly growing school with changing demographics
36-8 in a 6-12 blg
(600)
87% •As a small town•A school within a school •Having substantive poverty issues
SchoolsSchoolsScho
olGrades(Studen
ts)
SET Score
Characterized as:
46-8
(1078)99% •A rural community
•Having a high number of F & R lunch rates•A very diverse school
56-8
(500)80% •A semi rural
community•Having 70% F & R lunch rates•Mostly Caucasian
66-8
(800)90% •A semi rural
community changing to a more suburban community•Having 30% F & R lunch rates
SchoolsSchoolsScho
olGrades(Stude
nts)
SET Scor
e
Characterized as:
76-8
(410)90% • A Moderate sized town
•Having 70% F & R lunch rates•Having a substantive homelessness problem among student
87-8
(600)90% •A rural community
•Having conflicting socioeconomic levels
96-8
(450)95% •A rural community
•Having 70% F & R lunch rates•A split between African American and Caucasian
Procedures – Inclusion Criteria
• External CoachesExternal Coaches– At least 2 years experience providing At least 2 years experience providing
direct on-site assistance to schools to direct on-site assistance to schools to implement the universal level of the implement the universal level of the SWPBS prevention model; SWPBS prevention model;
– Has on-site contact with schools and the Has on-site contact with schools and the school’s universal intervention team – at school’s universal intervention team – at least 4 visits in a year; andleast 4 visits in a year; and
– Worked with at least 3 schools Worked with at least 3 schools implementing the SWPBS modelimplementing the SWPBS model
18 Participants (9 pairs) Across 5 States
9 External Coaches • Mean 16.5 years (r=8-29) experience in
education• Mean 5 years (r=2-8) experience with the
focus team/school• Average 28 (r=4-60) schools supported to
implement UI• 2 external coaches worked for the district• 7 external coaches worked for a state
initiative either directly or through a university contract
• 8 with masters; 1 with a PhD• 8 learned SWPBS through inservice with the
state team; 1 learned through inservice from the OSEP center; 1 had coursework
Procedures – Inclusion Criteria
• Internal Coaches– Designated as a coach or chair of a
middle school level universal intervention team;
– A member of the team since the first training the school received on universal interventions; and
– Employed full time by the school in which they serve as the team chair.
18 Participants (9 pairs) Across 5 Stateses
9 Internal Coaches*• Mean 15.5 years (r= 8-26) experience in
education• Mean 4.5 years (r= 3-6) experience with the
team/school• 8 were building based• 1 had cross building responsibilities • 1 Bachelors; 4 with Masters; 1 Ed.S• All learned SWPBS through inservice with the
state team; in addition, some had exposure through conferences or training through the OSEP center
**3 internal coaches did not return the demographic form (yet)
Interview ProceduresInterview ProceduresInterviews
• Semi-structured, open-ended• Generally 90 minutes• Audio taped and transcribed • Interview guide with three core sections
• Context: description of school, start up activities, team, strengths/needs of the school prior to implementation, implementation description
• Types of implementation support provided/received
• Barriers – Description of the barrier– Impact on implementation– Contributing factors– Resolution– Explanation of resolution– Strategies
Data AnalysisConsensual Qualitative Research (CQR)
(Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997)• Research Team • Rotating Roles (interviewers, primary coders,
auditors)• Multiple Stages of Data Analysis (audited,
consensual agreement)
Stage 1: Domain Code DevelopmentStage 2: Domaining (Coding)Stage 3: AbstractingStage 4: Cross Analysis and RecodingStage 5: Final Thematic Analysis
Findings
Types of Barriers Problematic
Across all participants, the Across all participants, the number one problem number one problem
encountered was the lack of encountered was the lack of consistency in consistency in
implementationimplementation
Types of Barriers Problematic
• Each school had it’s own story for how it Each school had it’s own story for how it arrived at inconsistent implementation and arrived at inconsistent implementation and how implementation issues were resolved.how implementation issues were resolved.
• What was common across schools was that What was common across schools was that “the problem” and “the resolution” were “the problem” and “the resolution” were some combination ofsome combination of::– Degree of administrative supportDegree of administrative support– Degree of staff “cognitive” readiness for PBSDegree of staff “cognitive” readiness for PBS– The general stability of and satisfaction with The general stability of and satisfaction with
the school contextthe school context
Types of Barriers Problematic
Attitude and Belief Issues• Knee jerk reaction to teaching and Knee jerk reaction to teaching and
reinforcing social behaviors: reinforcing social behaviors: – “kids should know what to do”– “this won’t work”– “focus on punitive consequences”
• Perception of usefulness for the Perception of usefulness for the school:school:
– “we don’t need this”– “it’s a special education thing”– “what we are doing is fine”– “just another initiative that will go away”– “it’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of”
Types of Barriers Problematic
Attitude and Belief Issues
Teaching and Reinforcing Teaching and Reinforcing
Social BehaviorsSocial BehaviorsExternExtern
al al CoachCoach
eses
InternaInternall
CoacheCoachess
Teaching Social BehaviorsTeaching Social Behaviors 88 22
Reinforcing Social BehaviorsReinforcing Social Behaviors 33 88
Focus on Punitive Focus on Punitive ConsequencesConsequences
22 11
The student is the problemThe student is the problem 22 00
Types of Barriers Problematic
Attitude and Belief IssuesPerceived Usefulness Perceived Usefulness ExternExtern
al al CoachCoach
eses
InternaInternall
CoacheCoachess
It won’t workIt won’t work 33 11
What we are doing is fineWhat we are doing is fine 11 33
Just another initiativeJust another initiative 11 22
It’s a special education It’s a special education thingthing
11 11
Types of Barriers Problematic
Administrative Support Issues• Described asDescribed as: inconsistent, unhelpful, : inconsistent, unhelpful,
obstructive, conflictual, or passivityobstructive, conflictual, or passivity• Examples of the implication Examples of the implication of of
administrative support were:administrative support were:– The team not having the resource they needThe team not having the resource they need– The team not getting the green light to The team not getting the green light to
implementimplement– Staff receiving mixed messagesStaff receiving mixed messages– Planning efforts stallingPlanning efforts stalling– Negative or “opting out” staff were reinforcedNegative or “opting out” staff were reinforced
Contributing Factors
Contributing Factors(Setting Events?)
• Contributing factors were historic or Contributing factors were historic or current contextual events that set a tone or current contextual events that set a tone or atmosphere that was inhospitable for atmosphere that was inhospitable for cultivating staff buy in to PBS.cultivating staff buy in to PBS.
• Interview Question: Interview Question: In the larger In the larger context of the school/district/community, context of the school/district/community, what factors, if any, do you think what factors, if any, do you think contributed to difficulties you experienced contributed to difficulties you experienced with staff buy in to PBS?with staff buy in to PBS?
Factors Described as Contributing to Attitude
and Belief IssuesContributing FactorsContributing Factors ExternExtern
al al CoachCoach
eses
InternaInternal l
CoacheCoachess
Administrative support Administrative support issuesissues
66 44
Staff moraleStaff morale 44 55
Lack of understanding of Lack of understanding of PBSPBS
22 55
Too many initiatives come Too many initiatives come and goand go
33 22
Achievement issuesAchievement issues 22 22
District issuesDistrict issues 33 11
Community issuesCommunity issues 33 00
Influence of Negative StaffInfluence of Negative Staff 11 22
Administrative Support Issues
The Chicken, The Egg or Both?• In 6 schools – the administrator was a In 6 schools – the administrator was a
key barrier and contributing factorkey barrier and contributing factor• Inconsistent administrative support was Inconsistent administrative support was
a barrier for the team AND a barrier for the team AND set the set the stagestage for staff to resist implementation: for staff to resist implementation:– ““If my principal isn’t pushing this, why If my principal isn’t pushing this, why
should I do/believe in it?”should I do/believe in it?”• No clear messageNo clear message• No accountabilityNo accountability• No visible administrator effortNo visible administrator effort
Resolving Barriers
Resolving Barriers
• Slow Process of Change– Participants reported multi year efforts (3
or more) to transform attitude conditions
• Catalyst Events– In the case of administrative support,
typically this issue was only resolved once there was a change in administrators
– Changes in administrator often resulted in a within a year turn around in staff attitudes
How Barriers Were Resolved
Strategies UsedContextual Changes
How Barriers Were Resolved Contextual
Changes
• Staff turnover• Changes in administrative
support/participation• Change in Administrator• Disconnecting PBS from special
education
How Barriers Were Resolved
Strategies Used• Involve staff in decision making
– Surveys, discussions, proposal comments
• Keep staff informed about PBS/ Keep PBS on the radar screen– Updates at staff meetings, emails, memos
• Pay attention to staff morale– Celebration events– Rewards for staff– Unity building activities
How Barriers Were Resolved
Strategies Used• Train and coach the team
– Retraining, action plan development, have team attend conferences
• Have the administrator take a stand – “PBS is a must do” “PBS is right for our
building”– Holding staff accounting– Encouraging more administrative
participation in planning meetings
How Barriers Were Resolved
Strategies Used• Share data and showcase successes
– Graphs, testimonials, examples
• Provide training to educate on PBS and clarify misconceptions– New staff orientation, small and large group
in-services, individual coaching, model implementation
• Hold discussions to share ideas, problem solve, talk through issues– Informal small group forums
How Barriers Were Resolved
Strategies Used• Demonstrate how PBS can help with
high need students
• Use phrasing and terminology that staff can relate to and feel comfortable with– “It will make your job easier”– “You’ve already been doing this”– “It won’t require a lot of work/effort”– “It will help the kids”
How Barriers Were Resolved
Strategies Used
• Meeting with the administrator– External coach met with administrator– Internal coach or other key team
member met with administrator
• Involve the principal in special ways– E.g., special principal ticket
How Barriers Were How Barriers Were ResolvedResolved
Resiliency Factors?Resiliency Factors?
• District level supportDistrict level support• Credible team who didn’t give up – Credible team who didn’t give up –
dedicated people who kept PBS alive dedicated people who kept PBS alive long enough for other changes to long enough for other changes to happenhappen
• Desire among staff to do the right Desire among staff to do the right thing for childrenthing for children
Take Away Messages1. In general external and internal
coaches were on the same page about big picture issues (e.g., staff buy in) but were not always consistent in their explanation of the specific nature of the issues (e.g., reason for lack of buy in)
2. Pay attention to and do something about the larger context or atmosphere issues of the school (e.g., staff morale)
Take Away Messages3. Participants discussed many strategies for
changing staff attitudes but felt limited when the problem was the administrator
4. Transforming barriers is often a slow process that requires multi-year efforts and combinations of persistently applied strategies
5. Work to secure district level support and make that support visible
Take Away Messages
6. 6. Much of what was done focused on improving the impact of PBS at school (making implementation better) so that staff would have the experience of seeing students improve– According to participants once staff began
to REALIZE that PBS was having a positive effect with the students, increased cooperation and participation were observed
Visit www.njpbs.org for handouts. Click on
Upcoming Events and Scroll to the APBS listing