SWPBS & RtI for All
George SugaiUniversity of Connecticut
OSEP Center on PBISSeptember 24, 2008
www.pbis.org www.cber.org
PURPOSEProvide brief overview of School-wide Positive Behavior Support & Response-to-Intervention for EVERYONE in school
Organizer
What is SWPBS?
What is RtI?
What are outcomes?
BIG IDEASuccessful individual student behavior support is linked to host environments or school climates that are effective, efficient, relevant, durable, & scalable(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
Evaluation Criteria
What isSchool-wide Positive
Behavior Support (PBIS)?
SWPBS is for EVERYONE by….
SWPBS Conceptual Foundations
Behaviorism
ABA
PBS
SWPBS
Laws of Behavior
Applied Behavioral Technology
Social Validity
All Students
SYST
EMS
PRACTICES
DATASupportingStaff Behavior
SupportingStudent Behavior
OUTCOMES
Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement
SupportingDecisionMaking
IntegratedElements
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
“Train & Hope”
REACT toProblemBehavior
REACT toProblemBehavior
Select &ADD
Practice
Select &ADD
Practice
Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice
Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice
WAIT forNew
Problem
WAIT forNew
Problem
Expect, But HOPE for
Implementation
Expect, But HOPE for
Implementation
Agreements
Team
Data-based Action Plan
ImplementationEvaluation
GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS
Classroom
SWPBSPractices
Non-classroom Family
Student
School-w
ide
• Smallest #• Evidence-based• Biggest, durable effect
SCHOOL-WIDE1. 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
INTERVENTION
PRACTICES
CLASSROOM1.Classroom-wide positive expectations taught & encouraged
2.Teaching classroom routines & cues taught & encouraged
3.Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adult-student interaction
4.Active supervision
5.Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors
6.Frequent precorrections for chronic errors
7.Effective academic instruction & curriculum
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
~80% of Students
~15%
~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• • • • • •
Where’d “triangle” come from….a
PBIS perspective?
“Triangle” ?’s
• Why triangle?
• Why not pyramid or octagon?
• Why not 12 tiers? 2 tiers?
• What’s it got to do w/ education?
• Where’d those %’s come from?
Public Health & Disease PreventionKutash et al., 2006; Larson, 1994
• Tertiary (FEW)– Reduce complications,
intensity, severity of current cases
• Secondary (SOME)– Reduce current cases of
problem behavior
• Primary (ALL)– Reduce new cases of
problem behavior
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
What is RtI?SWPBS detour
RtI
Response to Intervention
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”
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
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?
• ???
Who does SWPBS look
like?
Few positive SW expectations defined, taught, & encouraged
Employee Entrance at TulsaDowntown Doubletree
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
Data & More Examples
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
Mean ODRs per 100 students per school dayIllinois and Hawaii Elementary Schools 2003-04 (No Minors)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
N = 87 N = 53
Met SET 80/80 Did Not Meet SET
Mea
n O
DR
/100
/Day
.64
.85
Schools doing SW-PBS well report a 25% lower rate of ODRs
Illinois 02-03 Mean Proportion of Students Meeting ISAT Reading
Standardt test (df 119) p < .0001
46.60%
62.19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
PBIS NOT in place N = 69 PBIS IN place N = 52
Mea
n P
erce
ntag
e of
3rd
gra
ders
m
eetin
g IS
AT
Rea
ding
Sta
ndar
d
Schools doing SW-PBS well report associated in increases reading achievement
N =23 N = 8
Proportion of 3rd Graders who meet or exceed state reading standards (ISAT) in Illinois schools 02-03
t = 9.20; df = 27 p < .0001
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Not Meeting SET Meeting SET
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f S
tud
ents
Mee
tin
g
Rea
din
g S
tan
dar
ds
N = 23 N = 8
Schools doing SW-PBS well report associated in increases reading achievement
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
July 2, 2008
ODR rates vary by level
July 2, 2008
Top Related