From IDEA to Implementation: Getting Effective Practices into the Classroom

1. 2008 OSEP Project Director’s Conference From IDEA to Implementation: Getting Effective Practices into the Classroom The Illinois PBIS Network Lucille Eber Ed.D. lewrapil@aol.com State Director, IL PBIS Network

2. Sustainability of PBIS in IL: • State, Regional and Local Structures • Consistent statewide training and TA • Ensure readiness & commitment before training • Data disseminated and used • newsletters • website • presentations • trainings • reports • Continuous Regeneration

3. Implementation Model • Local Structures • School-based teams • District planning teams • Coaches (internal & external) • Regional Structures • Coordinators and Coaches • Delivery of Training and Technical Assistance • Statewide Structure • Development of Training & Technical Assistance • Evaluation & Dissemination • National Center Support

4. State-level Structure Implementation Staff (25 FTE) • Technical Assistance Directors • Technical Assistance Coordinators Administrative Support (9 FTE) • Training/Communications • Evaluation and Data Management • IT support

5. Social Competence & Academic Achievement OUTCOMES Supporting Decision Making DATA Supporting Staff Behavior SYSTEMS PRACTICES Supporting Student Behavior

6. School-Wide Systems for Student Success:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Academic Systems Behavioral Systems • Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions 1-5% • Individual students • Assessment-based • High intensity • 1-5% Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions • Individual students • Assessment-based • Intense, durable procedures • 5-15% Tier 2/Secondary Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Small group interventions • Some individualizing • Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5-15% • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Small group interventions • Some individualizing • Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90% • All students • Preventive, proactive • 80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions • All settings, all students • Preventive, proactive Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/schoolwide.htm

7. Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems Small Group Interventions(CICO, SSI, etc) ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc. Assessment Intervention Group Interventions with Individualized Focus(CnC, etc) Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals) Simple Individual Interventions (Simple FBA/BIP, Schedule/ Curriculum Changes, etc) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc. Multiple-Domain FBA/BIP SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T Wraparound Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Tier 2/Secondary Tier 3/ Tertiary Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

8. IL PBIS Schools and Districts PBIS Schools Trained & Implementing

9. 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).

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

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

12. 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).

13. 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).

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

15. Summary of FY 2008 Office Referrals:Mean Numberof Office Discipline Referralsper SIMEO Student N=44 N=44

16. Summary of FY 2008 Office Referrals:Mean Numberof Office Discipline Referralsper SIMEO Student for Students with Same Data Points N=19 N=19 N=19

17. Building Local Capacity: Coaches Coaches are school personnel who have: • Fluency with systems & practices • Capacity to delivery high level technical assistance • Capacity to sustain teams in efforts to implement systems & practices

18. Redefine Roles of District-level Staff to Coach Sustainability & Accountability • Hands-on technical assistance • Guide problem solving • Local training • Team start-up & sustainability • Public relations/communications • Support local leadership • Local coordination of resources • Provide prompts & reinforcers

19. PBIS External Coach Expansion from FY05 to FY08

20. Coach Role/Goals • Provide information and technical assistance: • best practices • current research • funding sources • Know and anticipate local needs and resources • Keep teams focused/functioning

21. Ongoing Staff Development Components to Consider: • Volume • Quality • Consistency • Dosage/practice • Layering Content from Tier to Tier • Systems, Data, Practices at all 3 Tiers

22. A Multi-level Training Plan Awareness/Readiness Universal/Tier 1 Secondary/Tier 2 Tertiary/Tier 3 Coaches Series Audience Specific (H.S, Alt. schools, etc) District Leadership Team Trainings Administrator Academies

23. Continuum of Support for Secondary-Tertiary Level Systems • 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 3.8.08

26. Content for integrated coaches training across related initiatives (state-level) Systems, Data and Practices Leadership Data based Decision Making Universal Screening Progress Monitoring Standards Aligned Curriculum Evidenced Based Practice 3-Tiered Model of Interventions Differentiation for Academics and Behavior Team Based Implementation Sustainability

27. Example from Advanced Coaches Training Course EX200 Objectives • Develop fluency with fidelity tools to guild district planning • Develop fluency with data-based decision-making for meeting the educational needs of all students • Practice strategies to coach district PBIS Leadership Teams

28. Objective 2Develop fluency with data-based decision making to meet the educational needs of all students • District Data Audit This data is currently available in schools; locating, aggregating, and analyzing it for trends is the challenge that proves most rewarding when completed.

29. Illinois PBIS Individual School Data Audit Purpose: To guide schools and districts in the collection, analysis, comparison and decision making for school improvement Compares and Correlates Multiple Data Sets • Demographics • Special Ed Data • Academic Achievement • Discipline Data Start with one year and add additional years to see trends Serves as a compilation sheet for information that is available to districts

30. Demographic and Academic Data • Enrollment Data: Fall Housing Report, SWIS, IIRC • Retention, Drop out, Graduation, Suspension/Expulsion, ODR’s – building and district records • Academic Data: ISAT Reports, Interactive School Report Card (iirc.niu.edu)

31. Special Education Data: • What is percentage of total enrollment by ethnicity? • What percentage of each ethnic group has an IEP? • What is their EE continuum? (% of time outside of General Education) • Does the data indicate an increase or decrease in students referred/placed in Special Education? • Does the data indicate an increase or decrease in least restrictive environment? Beyond ethnicity – replace ethnicity with gender, English Language Learners (ELL), free and reduced lunch

32. How to Find Special Education Data • Students referred: Building Records, possibly District Records • Students with IEP’s and EE data with option of multiple reports: IEPOINT Data Base (District Special Education Director or Coop Director identifies who has access and who uses the final data products ) • Special Ed Profile District Trend Data http://webprod1.isbe.net/LEAProfile

33. Challenge:Finding and Organizing Data on Placements and EE Use of Out-of-home-School Tool (OHSC-T): • Different people have the data; Sp. Ed. and Gen. Ed. data separate in most districts; • Who has data on students in ‘short term’ safe school placements? • Coding and other ways that ‘hide’ data makes the task hard; For example, students in certain placements didn’t “show up” in data review • Students in 100% Sp. Ed but in home school didn’t come up in data

34. Out of home tool: Data trends • AA students overrepresented in EBD and in restrictive settings • AA students underrepresented in Autism • Many kids in restrictive/placement have moved buildings a lot • Large #s of youth “not qualifying” for IEP but in ‘safe school’ • Students with other “label” may have behavior problems (ex. Students with LD in separate setting) • Placement of students in100% Special Education in home school viewed as “better” EE data (but it is not….)

35. District “X”: Out of Home School • Most out of home placements are BD eligibility • Most are for high school and middle with high school being greatest • All out of home school placements at elementary came from one elementary school with two being from the MI program.  • The numbers of students going out of district has dropped dramatically. • The numbers of students successfully transitioning back to their home school (from district off-site BD) has dramatically increased. • Larger #’s of students 60% > in general ed instruction (see IEPoint Data and FACTS data)

36. Next Steps • Continue to analyze data around elementary out of home school placements and build capacity in buildings to succeed with students in general education settings. • Further review special education placement data: • Review trends of students in general education 60%. Or more to determine effectiveness of students returning from out of district?

37. Activity B: District Data Audit Review the Data Audit for the District and the 2 Individual Schools. Process the data with the guide questions and suggest strategies for this district to improve the EE data.

38. Visibility Political Support Funding Leadership Team Active Coordination Evaluation Training Coaching Local School Teams/Demonstrations Taking it to Scale

39. District Summit Outcomes Participants will be able to: • identify the need for, membership of, function and mission of the district leadership team. • identify and analyze relevant data to determine academic and behavioral needs of students within the district. • integrate district initiatives to work more efficiently and avoid duplication of services.

40. District Summit Outcomes Participants will be able to: • self-assess the status of district-wide PBIS support. • develop a plan for long-term sustainability of the PBIS process in district schools.

41.  45%  34%

42. Technical Features: Database Development SIMEO Database (Systematic Information Management of Education Outcomes) online data collection and graphing database system for individual student receiving intensive level planning and supports

43. Results of Implementation of Wraparound within SW-PBS in IL Wraparound • Three year pilot • Enhance SOC wraparound approach • data-based decision-making as part of wraparound intervention • Development of strength-needs data tools • Use of web-based data system

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

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

46. Example of SIMEO-06Individual Student Data SystemUsing the Data to get to Strengths and Needs at Wrap meetings

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

48. Ensuring Capacity at All 3 Tiers • 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

49. District-wide Secondary/Tertiary Implementation Process • 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

50. System Data to Consider • 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