May 2008

1. Ensuring Success for Students with or at-risk of Emotional/Behavioral and other Disabilities through School-wide PBIS: The IL PBIS Tertiary Demonstration Process Lucille Eber IL PBIS Network May 2008

2. 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?

3. 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%

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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).

8. Illinois PBIS Schools Illinois PBIS Schools Completing School Profile Forms & Implementing Secondary/Tertiary Interventions across Five Years

9. Illinois PBIS Schools Comparison of Partial & Fully Implementing Schools on Suspensions/Expulsions FY07 per 100 Students

10. Illinois PBIS Schools Comparing School Safety Survey Partial vs. Full Implementation

11. 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).

12. 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).

13. Illinois PBIS Schools Small Group & Individual Interventions Rated "High" or "Very High" in Fully & Partially Implementing PBIS Schools 2006-07

14. Small Group Interventions Rated as "Very High” & "High“ in Fully & Partially Implementing PBIS Schools 2006-07 Illinois PBIS Schools

15. Illinois PBIS Schools Individual Interventions Rated “Very High” & “High” in Fully & Partially Implementing PBIS Schools 2006-07

18. Building Tertiary Capacity in Schools • Establish full-continuum of PBIS in schools • Identify/train team facilitators (FBA/BIP, wraparound) • Train other school personnel about wraparound • Ongoing practice refinement & skill development • Review data: outcomes of teams and plans IL PBIS Network

19. 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 also took steps to improve their universal and secondary systems. A Focus on Tertiary Impacts Implementation at All Levels End of Year One-June 07

20. IL Tertiary Demo Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases Simple Secondary Interventions *CICO = Check in, Check Out

21. Begin assessment and development of secondary and tertiary tiers at start-up of universal Assess resources and current practices (specialized services) Review current outcomes of students with higher level needs Position personnel to guide changes in practice Begin planning and training with select personnel All 3 tiers addressed at all district meetings and at every training Ensuring Capacity at All 3 Tiers

22. District Commitment Designated Buildings/District Staff External Tertiary Coach/Coordinator Continuum of Skill Sets (training, guided learning, practice, coaching, consultation) Commitment to use of Data System Going beyond ODR’s (i.e. SSBD) Self assessment/fidelity SIMEO-Student Outcomes Requirements for IL Tertiary Demos

23. District meeting quarterly District outcomes Capacity/sustainability Other schools/staff Building meeting monthly Check on all levels Cross-planning with all levels Effectiveness of practices (CICO/BIP/Wrap, etc) Secondary/Tertiary Coaching Capacity Wraparound Facilitators District-wide Secondary/Tertiary Implementation Process

24. EE Data (formerly known as LRE) Building and District Level By disability group Other “places” kids are “parked” Alternative settings Rooms w/in the building kids are sent Sub-aggregate groups Sp. Ed. Ethnicity DCFS System Data to Consider

25. Building Level: IL Phases of Implementation (PoI) Tool IL Secondary/Tertiary Intervention Tracking Tool Sp. Ed Referral Data Suspensions/Expulsions/Placements (ongoing) Aggregate Individual Student Data (IL SIMEO data) LRE Data trends Subgroup data (academic, discipline, Sp. Ed. Referral, LRE, etc) District Level: Referral to Sp.Ed. Data LRE Data (aggregate and by building) IL Out-of-Home-School-Tracking Tool (multiple sorts) Aggregate SIMEO data Aggregate PoI Data Ongoing Self–Assessment of Secondary/Tertiary Implementation

26. A key item in IL State Performance Plan for feds More districts to be “flagged” for monitoring Tertiary demo activities focus on IL SPP data points Educational Environment Data (EE)

27. Dewey Elementary School Changes in Least Restrictive Environment

28. EE Data(continued) • First step is accessing the data • Next is discussing with range of stakeholders and determining accuracy or how to make it accurate • Possible tools/procedures to make a difference

29. Similar to how we got started with ODR data clean up data (e.g. ODR form) review data trends and ask questions; Getting Started with Data-Based Decision-Making with EE Data

30. Getting Started(continued) • decide what it means by those who “live” the data; • decide what data points to focus on • design actions that seem likely to effect change; • monitor/revise action plan

31. 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 Wraparound Results of Implementation of Wraparound within SW-PBS in IL

32. 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

33. IL PBIS Tertiary Demos-07 Tertiary Interventions Linked to Immediate & Sustainable ODR Decreases

34. High Risk Low/No Risk (n = 19) Wraparound-07 Immediate & Sustainable Change Noted in Placement Risk

35. Wraparound-07 School Risk Behaviors Substantially Decline for Student Engaged in Wrap Avg # of episodes

36. Always Never IL Wraparound Data-07 Positive Classroom Behavior & Academic Achievement Linked

37. IL PBIS Tertiary Demos Shift in Responsibility for Individual Student Data Management at Tertiary Demo Sites

38. Use of “alternative” discipline responses; often w/o documentation Over use of “Special Education” placement w/o adequate dosage of interventions Why Do We Need to Go Beyond Use of ODRs?

39. High rate of unidentified MH problems Youth get identified only after “crisis” which makes it harder and more “costly” to intervene. Why Do We Need to Go Beyond Use of ODRs? (continued)

40. Developed as a school-wide (Universal) screening tool for children in grades 1-6 Similar to annual vision/hearing screenings The Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) (Walker and Severson, 1992)

41. Background • Identifies behaviors that may impede academic and social functioning • Leads to earlier intervention • May reduce need for formalized, lengthy “requests for assistance” by using data to identify youth

42. Implementation • Between early September-first of November, completed screenings in 6 districts and 18 schools • Initial results indicate that approximately 5%-10% of students enrolled in grades 1-6 were identified by the SSBD

43. A Middle school case example: Approximately 320 students enrolled in sixth grade were screened using the SSBD 38 six graders or 11% passed gate two Implementation

44. Implementation • Currently, school-based secondary teams are using SSBD data to implement low-intensity interventions (e.g., check-in/check-out)

45. “Mary Ellen”Home, School, Community Tool

46. “Jacob” Reasons for Wrap Referral Baseline Poor school attendance Tardiness Refusal to participate in 2nd grade classroom activities. Did work independently in office/partial school days. Previous hospitalization (Bipolar Disorder) Retention – currently repeating 2nd grade year Failing Grades Family Support Needs

47. “Jacob”Home/School/Community ToolGetting to Strengths & Needs at Baseline

48. Systems 1. Team based problem solving District, Building @ all 3 tiers 2. Data-based decision making system SWIS data (CICO) Web-based Individual student data system (IL-SIMEO) 3. Sustainability focus redefining roles, district-level data review, etc. 4. Systematic Screening Beyond ODR’s Tertiary Tier: Systems IL PBIS Network

49. Data Data used for engagement and action planning with team Data tools are strengths/needs based Multiple perspectives and settings captured in data Show small increments of change at team meetings Tertiary Tier: Data IL PBIS Network

50. Practices Youth having access to all levels of SWPBS Engagement and team development are critical elements Facilitation if team/plan is essential skill set Wrap process creates ownership/context for interventions FBA/BIP is essential skill set Assess/monitor progress and fidelity with families Tertiary Tier: Practices IL PBIS Network