Seventh Annual APEX
Summer Leadership Institute
Using a Multi-tiered Framework to
Build Effective Partnerships among
Schools, Youth, Families, and
Communities
Keynote Session
August 15, 2012
Lucille Eber, Ed.D.,Statewide Director, Illinois PBIS Network
Partner, National PBIS TA Center
www.pbisillinois.org
Lucille.Eber@pbisillinois.org
www.pbis.org
Need for Change?
Special Education
Sea of Ineligibility
General Education
Bridging the Gap
Amount of Resources
Needed to Solve Problem
General +
Intensive
Resources
General +
Supplemental
Resources
General Resources
Intensity of Problem
Some “Big Picture” Challenges
• Low intensity, low fidelity interventions for
behavior/emotional needs
• Habitual use of restrictive settings (and poor
outcomes) for youth with disabilities
• High rate of undiagnosed MH problems
(stigma, lack of knowledge, etc)
• Changing the routines of ineffective practices
(systems) that are “familiar” to systems
Acknowledgements:
Tier 2/3 Model Demo Development
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kimberli Breen
Michele Capio
Ami Flamini
Kelly Hyde
Amy Lee
Diane McDonald
Sheri Leucking
Jen Rose
Jennifer Swain-Bradway
IL Demo Districts/Coaches
How Secondary Schools
Are Different
•
•
•
•
•
•
Size
Expectations of staff
Staff is departmentalized
More groundwork is needed
Teams can become layered
Implementation comes more slowly
It Takes a System…
A System in the school to support a
continuum of supports and interventions.
District Level Structures are also critical.
SCHOOL-WIDE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
INTERVENTIONS and
SUPPORT
5%
15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
80% of Students
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
More Students Access Tier 2/3 Interventions
When Tier 1/ Universal is in Place
reported by Illinois schools implementing PBIS
FY09 IL School Profile Tool
Students Accessing Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions
% students
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
7.94%
4.95%
0%
Partially Implementing
Fully Implementing
(n=26)
(n=125)
Tier 2/3…..
Changing Existing Systems
• Harder than starting from scratch
• Schools think they are “already doing it”…
– Need to “deconstruct” some existing
teaming approaches and practices
– Data not being used except to justify
placements
Problem
•
Innovative practices do not fare well in old
organizational structures and systems
•
Organizational and system changes are
essential to successful use of innovations
– Expect it
– Plan for it
© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
Tier 2/
Secondary
ODRs,
Attendance,
Tardies, Grades,
DIBELS, etc.
Check-in/
Check-out
Social/Academic
Instructional Groups
Daily Progress
Report (DPR)
(Behavior and
Academic Goals)
Competing Behavior
Pathway, Functional
Assessment Interview,
Scatter Plots, etc.
Individualized CheckIn/Check-Out, Groups &
Mentoring (ex. CnC)
Tier 3/
Tertiary
Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/
Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)
Complex FBA/BIP
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Aug.,2009
Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
SIMEO Tools:
HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Wraparound
3-Tiered System of Support
Necessary Conversations (Teams)
Univers
al
Team
Plans
SW &
Class-wide
supports
Universal
Support
Secondary
Systems
Uses Process
Team data;
determines overall
intervention
effectiveness
Problem
Solving Team
Standing team; uses
FBA/BIP process for
one youth at a time
Tertiary
Systems
Uses Process
data;
Team
determines overall
intervention
effectiveness
CICO
SAIG
Group w.
individual
feature
Brief
FBA/BI
Brief
FBA/
BIP
Complex
FBA/BI
P
WRAP
Failed Interventions
are not Neutral
• They leave a residual effect…
• Think about Tier 2 interventions in your
school(s) with regards to the following
critical features:
Critical Features of Secondary/Tier 2
Group Interventions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intervention is continuously available
Rapid access to intervention (72 hr.)
Very low effort by teachers
Consistent with school-wide expectations
All staff/faculty in school are involved/have access
Flexible intervention based on descriptive functional
assessment
• Adequate resources (admin., team)
• Continuous monitoring for decision-making
Why Do Secondary/Tier 2 Group
Interventions Work?
• Improved structure
• Prompts throughout the day for correct behavior
• System for linking student with at least one adult
• Student chooses to participate
• Increased feedback
• Feedback occurs more often
• Feedback is tied to student behavior
• Inappropriate behavior is less likely to be
ignored or rewarded
Why do Secondary/Tier 2 Group
Interventions Work? (Continued)
• Increased frequency of acknowledgment/
reinforcement for appropriate behavior
• Adult and peer attention
• Linking school and home support
• Organized to morph into a self-management
system
Check-in-Check-out (CICO)
• Merely an extension of Tier 1
• Some get high frequency scheduled positive
contact with adults
• Youth solicit the positive contact/feedback
• Low effort for teacher if built on Tier 1
• Need to have 7-12% accessing if it is to come
to be a routine in your school(s)
• If you only have 1-2% on CICO, those are
likely to be kids who need more….
Why do you want 7-12% on CICO?
1. Youth who here-to-for would have gotten nothing (‘til they ‘got worse”)
now get a positive boost of support (sea of ineligibility)
2. All teachers will expect that every day they will have kids cross their
threshold who need higher rate of positive contact
3. Quicker/easier to support kids who need Tier 3
3. Structure to build transference and generalizing from Social Skills
instructional groups and function-based behavior plans
Reduced Suspensions for
Students with IEPs
Renewed focus on consistent Tier 1 and Tier 2
implementation shows promising results.
•
•
•
A 39% decrease in OSS events for general education students, and a 59%
decrease for students with IEPs.
A 37% decrease in the number of OSS days for general education students
and a 58% decrease for students with IEPs.
Principal attributes success to maintaining fidelity at the Tier 1 and Tier 2
levels, holding regular team meetings, and increasing staff commitment.
Study on ODR Rates for IL
Students with IEPs
(in process T. Tobin UP May 2012)
All Students with ODRs
ODR Students with IEPs
Year 1
Average = 277 (SD = 210)
Average = 84 (SD = 169)
2009-2010
Total = 12,745
Total = 3,852
Year 2
Average = 228 (SD = 161)
Average = 75 (SD = 140)
2010-2011
Total = 10,503
Total = 3,454
The results indicate that the 46 schools decreased
the ODR rates for all students as well as
decreased ODRs for students with IEPs
Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups:
Key Points Resulting from ‘Innovation’
• Selection into groups based on youths’ reaction to
life circumstance not existence of life
circumstances
– ex. fighting with peers, not family divorce
• Goals for improvement common across youth in
same group
– (ex. use your words)
• Data used to measure if skills are being USED in
natural settings (vs. in counseling sessions)
– transference of skills to classroom, café etc.)
• Stakeholders (teachers, family etc.) have input into
success of intervention
– (ex. Daily Progress Report)
Behavioral Pathway
Setting
Event
Days
with
Gym
Problem
Behavior
Negative
comments
about activity
and to peers
leading to
physical
contact
Consequence
Function
Sent out of
P.E. class
To
escape
setting
Brief Function-based Interventions
•
Setting
Event
Strategies
•Add
check-in
before
gym
Antecedent
Strategies
•Behavior Lessons
for all students about
using respectful
language with self
and others and how
to be a good sport
•. More frequent
activities with less
focus on competition
(parachute, 4-square,
etc...)
•Pre-correct
Teaching
Strategies
•Teach social skills
(getting along with
others, friendship,
problem solving,
sportsmanship)
Consequence
Strategies
Acknowledging
/rewarding
student when
uses new skills
(asking for a
drink of water
•Teach how to
to leave, using
approach gym
teacher to ask for a respectful
language with
drink of water to
peers, being a
leave setting.
good sport,
•Teach student how etc..)
to re-enter and
continue with
activity
Problem
• Students cannot benefit from
interventions they do not
experience
© Dean Fixsen, Karen Blase, Robert Horner, George Sugai, 2008
The System Features Needed to Support
he Effective Practices…
• A Team unique to each individual child &
family
– Blend the family/natural supports with the school
representatives who know the child best
• A defined Meeting Process
– Meet frequently and use data
– Develop, implement, review range of interventions
• Facilitator Role
– Bringing team together
– Blending perspectives; guiding consensus
– Systematic use of data (strengths and needs)
What is Wraparound?
•
Wraparound is a process for
developing family-centered teams
and plans that are strength and
needs based
 (not deficit based)
 across multiple settings and life
domains.
Who is Tier 3-Wraparound for?
• Youth with multiple needs across home,
school, community
• Youth at-risk for change of placement
(youth not responding to current
systems/practices)
• The adults in youth’s life are not effectively
engaged in comprehensive planning (i.e.
adults not getting along very well)
Four Phases of Wraparound
Implementation
I.
Team Development
- Get people ready to be a team
- Complete strengths/needs chats (baseline data)
II.
Initial Plan Development
- Hold initial planning meetings (integrate data)
- Develop a team “culture” (use data to establish voice)
III.
Plan Implementation & Refinement
- Hold team meetings to review plans (ongoing data
collection and use)
- Modify, adapt & adjust team plan (based on data)
IV. Plan Completion & Transition
- Define good enough (Data-based decision-making)
- “Unwrap”
Implementing Wraparound:
Key Elements Needed for Success
• Engaging students, families & teachers
• Team development & team ownership
• Ensuring student/family/teacher voice
 Getting to real (big) needs
• Effective interventions
 Serious use of strengths
 Natural supports
 Focus on needs vs. services
• Monitoring progress & sustaining
• System support buy-in
Features of Wraparound:
•
individual students
•
built upon strengths
•
voice, priorities of youth and family
•
based on unique youth and family needs
•
culturally relevant teams and plans
•
plans include natural supports
•
traditional and non-traditional interventions
•
multiple life domains
•
unconditional
Wraparound Skill Sets
1. Identifying “big” needs (quality of life indicators)
•
“Student needs to feel others respect him”
2. Establish voice/ownership
3. Reframe blame
4. Recognize/prevent teams’ becoming
immobilized by “setting events”
5. Getting to interventions that actually work
6. Integrate data-based decision-making into
complex process (home-schoolcommunity)
Data-Based Decision-Making
and Wraparound
Can wraparound teams use data-based
decision-making to prioritize needs,
design strategies, & monitor progress of
the child/family team?
 more efficient teams, meetings, and plans?
 less reactive (emotion-based) actions?
 more strategic actions?
 more effective outcomes?
 longer-term commitment to maintain success?
Alton Middle School ODR Reduction for
Students in Tier 3 Supports
(n=17 students)
FY 201I-Tier III Study
Mean Number of Episdoes per Student
School Risk Behaviors: Aggregate Change
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
4
3.25
2.37
0.7
Baseline
0.6
0.32
Time 2
ODR
Time 3
OSS
N=200
Alton CUSD 11 Decreases Reliance on Self
Contained Special Education Placements
Alton Middle School, Alton CUSD 11, SPP Data
Demonstrates Access to General Education
Settings for Students with IEPs
Replication District CUSD 300 Starts to Turn
Curve of SPP Indicators in Desired Direction
Rehabilitation,
Empowerment, Natural
Supports, Education
and Work {RENEW}
J. Malloy and colleagues at UNH
• Developed in 1996 as the model for a 3-year RSAfunded employment model demonstration project for
youth with “SED”
• Focus is on community-based, self-determined services
and supports
• Promising results for youth who typically have very poor
post-school outcomes (Bullis & Cheney; Eber, Nelson & Miles,
1997; Cheney, Malloy & Hagner, 1998)
RENEW Overview
RENEW (Rehabilitation, Empowerment, Natural
Supports, Education and Work) is an application
of wraparound
• Reflects key principles: person-centered,
community and strengths-based, natural
supports
• Focused on student, versus parent
engagement (e.g., student-centered teams,
student-developed interests)
RENEW Supports HS Youth
Transitioning Back from Alternative
School
• “Mark” an 18 year old junior with a Specific Learning Disability:
• Expelled in April 2011 for possession, use, and intent to sell an illegal
•
•
substance.
History of truancy and 16 past ODRs.
Sent to an alternative school from Apr. 2011-Dec. 2011.
• In December began RENEW process, and in January transitioned back to
his community high school.
• Supported by a Check-in Check-out intervention that included his
probation officer.
• Connected with each teacher after class and
• Social worker at the beginning and end of each day.
RENEW Supports HS Youth
Transitioning Back from Alternative
School
• Mark’s RENEW plan includes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identifying credit needs to graduate on time
Obtaining a driver’s license
Developing organizational techniques
Setting up a savings account
Enrolling in summer school
Working evenings and weekends at family business
• Mark passed all Q3 classes, only one ODR for being tardy, and
no suspensions.
Ongoing Coaching is needed to establish
capacity (fidelity) for wraparound:
•
•
•
•
Fluency with practices and data
Competency-based coaching and TA
Ongoing ‘practice refinement’
Stay at the table…staythe course
Interconnected Systems
Framework paper
(Barrett, Eber and Weist , revised 2009)
Developed through a collaboration of the
National SMH and National PBIS Centers
www.pbis.org
Contributions from Colette Lueck, the IL Children’s Mental Health Partnership
And Lisa Betz, The IL Department of Human Services, Division of Mental health
Why We Need MH Partnerships
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
One in 5 youth have a MH “condition”
About 70% of those get no treatment
School is “defacto” MH provider
JJ system is next level of system default
1-2% identified by schools as EBD
Those identified have poor outcomes
Suicide is 4th leading cause of death among
young adults
Old Approach 
• Each school works out their
own plan with Mental Health
(MH) agency;
• A MH counselor is housed in
a school building 1 day a
week to “see” students;
• No data to decide on or
monitor interventions;
• “Hoping” that interventions
are working; but not sure.
New Approach
• District has a plan for integrating
MH at all buildings (based on
community data as well as
school data);
• MH person participates in teams
at all 3 tiers;
• MH person leads group or
individual interventions based on
data;
• For example, MH person leads or
co-facilitates small groups,
FBA/BIPs or wrap teams for
students.
Structure for Developing an ISF:
Community Partners Roles in Teams
• A District/Community leadership that includes families,
develops, supports and monitors a plan that includes:
• Community partners participate in all three levels of
systems teaming: Universal, Secondary, and Tertiary
• Team of SFC partners review data and design
interventions that are evidence-based and can be
progress monitored
• MH providers form both school and community develop,
facilitate, coordinate and monitor all interventions
through one structure
Community Partners
Roles in Teams
• Participate in all three levels of systems
teaming: Universal, Secondary, and
Tertiary
• Facilitate or co-facilitate tertiary teams
around individual students
• Facilitate or co-facilitate small groups with
youth who have been identified in need of
additional supports
Examples of
Lessons Learned with High
Schools (and Middle schools)
Define At-Risk
Staff/Community
Simple Data
SAIG, Universal Behavior Lesson Plans & the Matrix
Definition of At-Risk
• Make sure at-risk is clearly defined
• Think about building and community data
points which might support the definition
If tier 2 isn’t working, always look to see if
you are putting students into lower level
interventions who are really in need of higher
level interventions.
STAFF
• Educate your staff re: the use of positive, corrective
feedback
– Don’t assume people know how to give feedback
– Have people practice giving feedback (in a staff meeting, during
training)
– Give people the words to use when giving feedback
• Provide staff feedback & acknowledgements regarding their
feedback
• Pay attention to staff resistance and address it as it occurs
• Identify community that could participate and support
interventions.
Corrective Feedback
NOT Corrective
• You broke the rules again.
• You were late just like
yesterday.
• You are in high school, I
shouldn’t have to remind
you to bring your book.
• Why do you always have to
shout out?
CORRECTIVE
• You did not have your book
today. Please remember
to bring it tomorrow.
• You were late for class
today. Please be in your
seat before the bell rings.
• You shouted out while I was
showing the problem on the
board. Please raise your
hand and I will call on
you.
Connect this language to the matrix
Illinois College &
Jacksonville High School
Partnership
Illinois College Students earned course credit for hours logged
in the high school. They were able to gain hands-on and real
life experiences while assisting with secondary interventions at
JHS.
• Assisted with AM Check In and PM Check Out
• Collected and organized SWIS data for the Secondary
Systems
• Co-facilitated S/AIG Groups
• Assisted with communication between staff, students and
families regarding secondary interventions.
Data needs to be simple!
• Are the data points for entry simple?
*When collecting data it should be for ALL or SOME
kids. At the beginning of tier 2, you don’t need to
look up individual kid data.
• Are the data points in line with “at-risk”?
• Track Data and determine if 70% are
responding. If not, look at systems first.
• Is the DPR ready and is it Tied to universal?
Progress Monitoring:
Evaluating the Program: 20102011
CICO
Daily
Progress
Report
SAIG
Keep an eye out for the “we must have a curriculum syndrome”!
The cause of this syndrome could
be schools are NOT teaching
Universal lessons based upon their
data.
Since they aren’t teaching
behavior on a regular basis, they
don’t have lesson plans to use for
SAIG.
This equals the search for
curriculum and the avoidance of
teaching behavior universally.
Using universal behavior lesson
plans
• Going to help you keep Tier 2 connected to Tier
one.
• Going to make you re-visit your matrix and
remind you of the need for it to be fluid.
• Is your matrix addressing only problem
behaviors or is it also addressing pro-social
behaviors?
– Procedure vs. Skill
Procedure & Pro-social Skill
blending them on the matrix makes all of this more “high school friendly”
Procedures
• Throw paper in the waste
can
• Use the right side of the
stairway
• Bring all materials to
class
• Keep Hands, Feet, and
Other Objects to yourself
Pro-Social Skills
• Contribute in class; raise
hand to volunteer answer
• Encourage others in gym
class; tell peer they did a
good job
• Sit next to a different peer
If using curriculum…
• Use data to identify students
• Consider accessing community
supports
• Look at process and outcome data
• Consider using behavior lesson plans in
addition to curriculum based groups.
Outcomes (SPARCS)
School Data – Office Discipline Referrals
ODR Comparison 14 Weeks Before Intervention and 14 Weeks on Intervention
10
9
8
37%
Reduction
Overall
Number of ODRs
7
6
23%↓
5
25%↓
ODR Total 14 Weeks Before Intervention
45%↓
ODR Total 14 Weeks On Intervention
4
3
66%↓
2
100%↑
1
0
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Students
Student 4
Student 5
Outcomes (SPARCS)
School Data – In-School and Out-of-School
Suspension
ISS and OSS 14 Weeks Before vs 14 Weeks During Intervention
for Group
25
Total Number
20
15
23%↓
Before
10
After
25% ↓
5
0
Total Number ISS
Total Number OSS
Offenses
Academic Seminar: Academic
and Social Supports for Middle
and High School Students at
Risk of Failure
Jessica Swain-Bradway, Ph.D.,
IL PBIS Network
Jessica.swainbradway@pbisillinois.org
Big Picture
Students need to be engaged in work to succeed in
school.
We must target secondary supports on reducing
obstacle to success.




By increasing adult interaction
By communicating with home
By increasing predictability
By providing BOTH social and academic supports
We need to be efficient and effective.
 ASAP!
Academic Seminar
• Secondary tier intervention for middle and high
school students at rick of school failure
• Combines critical components as identified by
PBIS & school retention literature
• Targets immediate access skills v long term
acquisition skills
• Focuses on escape maintained problem
behavior
•
•
•
Building skills in organization
Providing time, resources and assistance to
complete work
Providing increased acknowledgement for
completing work
Academic Seminar
> 45 minute class
 5 minutes: Entry Task, Check-In
 15 minutes skill building: foundational
organizational skills
 25 minutes supported homework completion:
application of organizational skills to homework
activities
> Daily class
> First period of the day
> Student participates in CICO cycle
 First period Academic Seminar class serves as
morning check-in period
 Academic Seminar teacher coordinates CICO
Academic Seminar for Students who…
• Failing 1 or more content area class
• Engaging in escape maintained behaviors
due to difficulty of work:
– Incomplete homework, class work
• Could use additional supports organizing
– Black hole back pack
– Missing work
– Don’t know due dates, class requirements
• Find at least one adult reinforcing
• Are not in “crisis”
• Freshman, Sophomores
Academic Seminar
o Increases home school connection,
o Check IN Check Out card home component – for
some students
o Combines academic and social supports
o Academic Seminar curriculum
o School adjustment skills that allow access to academic
success
o Rapid response/continuously available
o Class
o Ongoing data collection for decision making
o Academic data: classroom grades, in-class activities
o CICO data
Summary …
• Prevention-based systems, with capacity to scale-up and
provide effective interventions for all youth (including those
with or at-risk of EBD), can be effectively implemented in
schools.
• Building a multi-tiered system of supports can increase
schools’ capacity to identify MH needs of a wider range of
students sooner, supporting families in a timely manner.
• Behavior support for students with emotional/behavioral
needs is not just a “Special Education” issue.
Summary (continued)
• Schools can’t do it alone…partnerships with families
and communities are needed to ensure success.
• It is possible for teachers and all school personnel to
feel competent and confident on how to prevent and
redirect and respond to behaviors of all youth
• Thank you for all YOU do!