SWPBS (aka EBS) 10 Year Perspective

1. SWPBS (aka EBS)10 Year Perspective George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS University of Oregon Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut March 11, 2008 www.pbis.org www.cber.org George.sugai@uconn.edu

2. PURPOSE: Acknowledge what we have learned over last 10 years • Where did SWPBS come from? • Has triangle been useful? • What about academic achievement? • Is SWPBS program or system? • What about next 10 years?

3. World Events for 1997 • Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess rematch • Hong Kong reverts to China after 156 years as British Colony • Space station 'Mir' experiences life threatening malfunctions & accidents • 1st Harry Potter book published • Clinton US president of US & Chretien Canadian prime minister • Seinfeld, Men in Black, Candle in the Wind (E. John) • Millions commemorate 20th anniversary of Elvis' death • Princess Diana killed in Paris car crash • 3 high school students killed in Paducah KY • Iowa woman gives birth to septuplets; all survive • Adult sheep named Dolly successfully cloned in Scotland • Center on PBIS awarded to university collaborative

4. Where did SWPBS come from?

5. Before1997 • No such thing as www • No such thing as PBIS Center • “Pre-PowerPoint”…transparencies • Concern about school climate & problem behavior • EBS “Effective Behavior Support”

6. 1985

7. 2008

8. Evolution School-wide Positive Behavior Support 2008 OR PBS & PBIS-III? 1986 Bohemia Elementary (1) 2007 USF Scaling Up Center 1988 Project PREPARE (4) 2003 OSEP TA PBIS-2 Center (~40/~6600) 1994 Effective Behavior Support Project (6) 2001 OR Behavior Research Center 1996 Fern Ridge Middle 1998 OSEP TA PBIS Center (~15/~1000)

9. Circa 1996 Fern Ridge Middle School Taylor-Greene et al., 1996

10. Pre Post

11. Behaviorism SWPBS Conceptual Foundations ABA EBS/PBS SWPBS

12. PBIS objective…. Redesign & support teaching & learning environments that are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable • Outcome-based • Data-guided decision making • Evidence-based practices • Systems support for accurate & sustained implementation

13. Has “triangle” been useful?

14. Circa 1996

15. 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 Original logic: public health & disease prevention (Larson, 1994)

17. Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ~5% Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior ~15% Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students

18. “Triangle” ?’s you should ask! • Where did it come from? • Why not a pyramid or octagon? • Why not 12 tiers? 2 tiers? • What’s it got to do w/ sped? • Where those % come from?

19. 05% 20% 11% 22% 84% 58% SWPBS schools are more preventive

20. SWIS 06-07 (Majors Only)1974 schools; 1,025,422 students; 948,874 ODRs Rule violations happen

21. Mean Proportion of Students 3% 8% 89% 10% 16% 74% 11% 18% 71% ODR rates vary by level K=6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)

22. A few kids get many ODRs 32% 43% 25% 48% 37% 15% 45% 40% 15% K-6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)

23. ODR rates vary by grade

24. What about academic achievement?

25. It’s not just about behavior! STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Good Teaching Behavior Management Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems

26. Academic Systems Behavioral Systems • 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 Circa 1996 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% 80-90% 80-90%

28. RtI

29. RtI: Good “IDEiA” 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 education • NOT new

30. 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”

32. RtI Application Examples

33. Responsiveness to InterventionAcademic+ Social Behavior

34. RTI Continuum of Support for ALL Few Some All Dec 7, 2007

35. RCT etc.Algozzine et al., Horner et al., Leaf et al., • Improvements in school climate • Decreases in ODR • Improvements in perceived school safety • Improvements in achievement • Standardized achievement tests • High levels of implementation fidelity

36. Is SWPBS Program or System?

37. Positive Behavior Support Supporting Decision Making Supporting Staff Behavior DATA SYSTEMS PRACTICES Circa 1996 Supporting Student Behavior

38. Basics: 4 PBS Elements Supporting Social Competence & Academic Achievement OUTCOMES Supporting Decision Making Supporting Staff Behavior DATA SYSTEMS PRACTICES Supporting Student Behavior

39. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: “Getting Started” Team Agreements Data-based Action Plan Evaluation Implementation

40. Sample Implementation “Map” • 2+ years of school team training • Annual “booster” events • Coaching/facilitator support @ school & district levels • Regular self-assessment & evaluation data • On-going preparation of trainers • Development of local/district leadership teams • Establishment of state/regional leadership & policy team

41. Organization of behavioral subsystems Circa 1996

42. SWPBS Subsystems School-wide Classroom What does SWPBS look like? Family Non-classroom Student

43. School-wide 1. 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

44. Reinforcement Wisdom! • “Knowing” or saying “know” does NOT mean “will do” • Students “do more” when “doing works”…appropriate & inappropriate! • Natural consequences are varied, unpredictable, undependable,…not always preventive

45. Non-classroom • Positive expectations & routines taught & encouraged • Active supervision by all staff • Scan, move, interact • Precorrections & reminders • Positive reinforcement

47. Classroom • Classroom-wide positive expectations taught & encouraged • Teaching classroom routines & cuestaught & encouraged • Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adult-student interaction • Active supervision • Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors • Frequent precorrections for chronic errors • Effective academic instruction & curriculum

48. Romanowich, Bourett, & Volmer, 2007

49. Individual Student • Behavioral competence at school & district levels • Function-based behavior support planning • Team- & data-based decision making • Comprehensive person-centered planning & wraparound processes • Targeted social skills & self-management instruction • Individualized instructional & curricular accommodations