Leadership in Implementing
School-wide PBIS
February 27
Rob Horner
University of Oregon
OSEP TA-Center on PBIS
www.pbis.org
Goals
• Goals
• Define current status of SWPBIS implementation
• Define lessons learned about effective leadership in
implementation of SWPBIS.
• Define role of the Implementation Blueprint
• Detail how the collection and use of data affects implementation
of SWPBIS
• Provide opportunity for questions.
Themes Affecting Education:
Multi-tiered Systems, Evidence-based Practices, Implementation Science
Evidence-based Practices
Performance
Assessment (Fidelity)
Coaching
Systems
Intervention
Facilitative
Administration
Training
Selection
Multi-tiered
Systems of Support
Effective
Implementation
Decision Support
Data System
Leadership Drivers
Technical
Adaptive
Implementation Science
School-wide Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS)
• The social culture of a school
matters.
• A continuum of supports that
begins with the whole school and
extends to intensive, wraparound
support for individual students
and their families.
• Effective practices with the
systems needed for high fidelity
and sustainability
• Multiple tiers of intensity
What is School-wide Positive Behavior
Intervention and Support?
• School-wide PBIS is:
• A framework for establishing the social culture and
behavioral supports needed for a school to achieve
behavioral and academic outcomes for all students.
• Evidence-based features of SWPBIS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prevention
Define and teach positive social expectations
Acknowledge positive behavior
Arrange consistent consequences for problem behavior
On-going collection and use of data for decision-making
Continuum of intensive, individual intervention supports.
Implementation of the systems that support effective
practices
Why SWPBIS?
• The fundamental purpose of
SWPBIS is to make schools more
effective learning environments.
Predictable
Positive
Consistent
Safe
Experimental Research on SWPBIS
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention
Science, 10(2), 100-115
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). The impact of school-wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School
Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462-473.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in
elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133-148.
Bradshaw, C.P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K.B., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized
trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26.
Bradshaw, C., Waasdorp, T., Leaf. P., (in press). Effects of School-wide positive behavioral interventions and
supports on child behavior problems and adjustment. Pediatrics.
Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J., (2009). A randomized, wait-list
controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133-145.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior
support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), 1-14.
Ross, S. W., Endrulat, N. R., & Horner, R. H. (2012). Adult outcomes of school-wide positive behavior support.
Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. 14(2) 118-128.
Waasdorp, T., Bradshaw, C., & Leaf , P., (2012) The Impact of Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports on Bullying and Peer Rejection: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial. Archive of
Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. 2012;166(2):149-156
Summary of Research
• School-wide PBIS is an evidence-based practice
• Implementation is related to improved academic and social
behavior.
• Tier I SWPBIS can be implemented with fidelity by any school
in the U.S. without new resources or dramatic
reorganization.
• Successful Schools:
• Define a clear commitment to school-wide social culture
• Add data systems (fidelity and Student Outcomes)
• Provide the leadership to allow effective team-based decisionmaking.
• Tier II and Tier III supports will require more adaptation
SCHOOL-WIDE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
~5%
~15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
27
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
Main Ideas:
1. Invest in prevention first
2. Multiple tiers of support
intensity
3. Early/rapid access to
~80% of Students
support
Math
Remember that the multiple
tiers of support refer to our
SUPPORT not Students.
Behavior
Avoid creating a new disability
labeling system.
Health
Reading
Number of Schools Implementing SWPBIS since 2000
20000
19,054
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10'
11'
12'
13'
0
Wyoming
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Washington DC
Washington State
Virginia
Vermont
Utah*
Texas
Tennessee
South Dakota
South Carolina*
Rhode Island
Pennsylvania
Oregon*
Oklahoma
Ohio
North Dakota*
North Carolina*
1600
New York
New Mexico
New Jersey*
New Hampshire
Nevada
Nebraska
Montana*
Missouri*
Mississippi
Minnesota
Michigan
Massachusetts
Maryland*
Maine
Louisiana*
Kentucky
Kansas*
Iowa*
Indiana
Illinois
Idaho
Hawaii
Georgia
Guam
Florida*
Delaware
Connecticut
Colorado*
California
Arkansas
Arizona
Alaska
Alabama
Count of School Implementing SWPBIS by State
February, 2013
1800
Illinois
14 States > 500 Schools
1400
1200
Arizona
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Oregon*
Rhode Island
Wyoming
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Washington DC
Washington State
Virginia
Vermont
Utah*
Texas
Tennessee
South Dakota
South Carolina*
0.7
Pennsylvania
0.8
Oklahoma
Ohio
North Dakota*
North Carolina*
New York
New Mexico
New Jersey*
New Hampshire
Nevada
Nebraska
Montana*
Missouri*
Mississippi
Minnesota
Michigan
Massachusetts
Maryland*
Maine
Louisiana*
Kentucky
Kansas*
Iowa*
Indiana
Illinois
Idaho
Hawaii
Georgia
Guam
Florida*
Delaware
Connecticut
Colorado*
California
Arkansas
Arizona
Alaska
Alabama
Proportion of Schools Implementing SWPBIS by State
February, 2013
0.9
12 states over 40% of all
schools implementing
SWPBIS
0.6
Arizona
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Using the PBIS
Implementation Blueprint
• Exploration
• Annual Assessment
• Action Planning
Visibility
Funding
Political
Support
Policy
Leadership Team
Active Coordination
Training
Coaching
Behavioral
Expertise
Evaluation
Local School/District Teams/Demonstrations
Sugai et al., www.pbis.org
SWPBS Implementation Self-Assessment and Planning Tool
IMPLEMENTATION FEATURE
IN PLACE STATUS
Yes
1. Capacity to address multi-school (district) and/or multidistrict (region, state) leadership and coordination.
Leadership Team
2. Leadership Team with representation from appropriate
range of stakeholders (e.g., special education, general
education, families, mental health, administration, higher
education, professional development, evaluation &
accountability).
3. Completion of SWPBS Implementation Blueprint selfassessment at least annually.
4. 3-5 year prevention-based action plan that delineates
actions linked to each feature of the Implementation
Blueprint.
5. Regular meeting schedule (at least quarterly) &
meeting process (agenda, minutes, dissemination).
Partial
No
GOAL: District and/or state level capacity to establish, sustain, and scale-up of accurate implementation of a continuum (multi-tiered) of SWPBS across multiple schools.
M
ar
A
pr
M
ay
Ju
n
Ju
l
A
u
g
S
ep
O
ct
D
ec
Ja
n
1. Select next action/activity (and for each action define
who will perform, and when action will be accomplished).
2. The active actions become items for weekly/monthly
meetings
Policy
Political
Support
Visibility
Funding
Behavioral
Expertise
Evaluation
Training
Coaching/
Facilitation
Action Planning:
For Items not Implemented:
Fe
b
Ja
n
D
ec
N
ov
O
ct
S
ep
A
u
g
Ju
l
Month
Leadership/
Coordination
Activity/Action (Person/s)
Stages of
Implementation
Stages of Implementation
Focus
Should we
do it!
Stage
Description
Exploration/
Adoption
Decision regarding commitment to
adopting the program/practices and
supporting successful implementation.
Installation
Set up infrastructure so that successful
implementation can take place and be
supported. Establish team and data
systems, conduct audit, develop plan.
Initial
Implementation
Try out the practices, work out details,
learn and improve before expanding to
other contexts.
Full
Implementation
Expand the program/practices to other
locations, individuals, times- adjust from
learning in initial implementation.
Continuous
Improvement/
Regeneration
Make it easier, more efficient. Embed
within current practices.
Work to do
it right!
Work to do
it better!
Steve Goodman
Scaling up School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports:
The Experiences of Seven States with Documented Success
Rob Horner, Don Kincaid,George Sugai, Tim Lewis, Lucille Eber, Susan Barrett,
Celeste RossettoDickey, Mary Richter, Erin Sullivan,Cyndi Boezio, Nancy Johnson
Exploration
Leadership
Team
Funding
Visibility
Political
Support
Policy
Training
Coaching
Expertise
Evaluation
Demos
Installation
Initial Imp
Full Imp
Innovation
Sustainability
Exploration and
Adoption
Installation
Initial
Implementation
Full
Implementation
Innovation and
sustainability
Do you have a state
leadership team?
What were critical
issues that
confronted the
team as it began
to install systems
changes?
What were specific
activities the team
did to ensure
success of the initial
implementation
efforts?
Did the team
change personnel
or functioning as
the # of
schools/districts
increased?
What has the
Leadership team
done to insure
sustainability?
Leadership Team (coordination)
If you do, how was
your first leadership
team developed?
Who were
members?
Who supported/lead
the team through
the exploration
process?
Was any sort of selfassessment
completed (e.g. the
PBIS
Implementation
Blueprint
Assessment)?
What was the role
of State agency
personnel in the
exploration phase?
In what areas is
the State
“innovating”
and contributing
to the research
and practice of
PBIS (e.g. linking
PBIS with
literacy or
math)?
Descriptive Summary: Oregon
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Exploration
/ Installation /
Initial Imp
/Full Imp & Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Missouri
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Exploration
/
Installation
/Initial Imp
/ Full Imp & Innovate
Descriptive Summary: North Carolina
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
00-01
01-02
Exploration
02-03
/
03-04
04-05
Installation
06-07& Full07-08
/05-06 Initial
Imp
08-09
/
09-10
Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Colorado
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
02-03
03-04
04-05
Exploration / Installation
05-06
/
06-07
07-08
Initial & Full Imp /
08-09
09-10
Innovate
10-11
Descriptive Summary: Florida
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05Imp /
05-06 Full Imp
06-07
Exploration/
Installation/
Initial
/
07-08
09-10
Innovate
08-09
Descriptive Summary: Maryland
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Exploration
/2001
Installation
2000
2002
1999
/ Initial
/ Full
2004Imp 2005
2006Imp
2003
2007
/
Innovate
2009
2008
2010
Descriptive Summary: Illinois
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
98-99
00-01
Exploration
/ 99-00
Installation
/01-02
02-03
Initial04-05
Imp
03-04
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
/Full
Imp &
Innovate
Lessons Learned
• Multiple approaches to achieving scaled implementation
• Colorado: Started with Leadership Team
• Illinois: Started with Leadership Advocates and built team only after
implementation expanded.
• Missouri: Strong initial demonstrations led to strong state support
• All states began with small “demonstrations” that documented the
feasibility and impact of SWPBIS.
• Only when states reached 100-200 demonstrations did scaling
occur. Four core features needed for scaling:
• Administrative Leadership / Support/ Funding
• Technical capacity (Local training, coaching, evaluation and behavioral
expertise)
• Local Demonstrations of feasibility and impact (100-200)
• Evaluation data system (to support continuous improvement)
• Essential role of Data: Fidelity data AND Outcome data
Lessons Learned
• Scaling is NOT linear
• Sustained scaling requires continuous regeneration
• Threats to Scaling:
•
•
•
•
•
Competing initiatives
The seductive lure of the “new idea”
Leadership turnover
Legislative mandates
Fiscal constraint
Regular
Dissemination of
Fidelity and Impact
data is the best
“protective factor”
for threats to
scaling
Lessons Learned
• Scaling requires planned efficiency
• The unit cost of implementation must decrease as the number of
adoptions increases.
•
•
•
•
Shift from external trainers to within state/district trainers
Use local demonstrations as exemplars
Increased coaching capacity can decrease investment in training
Improved “selection” of personnel decreases turnover and
development costs
• Use existing professional development and evaluation resources
differently
• Basic Message: The implementation practices that are
needed to establish initial exemplars may be different from
the practices used to establish large scale adoption.
• Jennifer Coffey, 2008
Effective PBIS Leadership
• Define a five year vision:
• Number of districts/ schools
• Extend that vision to incorporate at least 80% of all schools in the
state
• Clarify role of Leadership Team
• Active leadership and guidance. Not just “informational” or
“consultative”
• Meet regularly, carry tasks between meetings, use data
• Need formal “coordinator” role… to ensure that things get done
• Establish Workgroups
•
•
•
•
Policy/ Funding
Training
Evaluation
Coordination/Communication
Summary
• Leadership is essential for successful implementation of PBIS.
• Vision, Local Capacity, Assess, Adapt.
Lesson #7:
Invest in Intensive Supports (Tier II, III)
• Establish the organizational capacity to support students with
more severe problem behavior.
• The three areas of “knowledge” needed by a team.
• Bennazi et al., (2006)
• Knowledge about student
• Knowledge about context
• Knowledge about behavioral theory
• The importance of understanding “function” of behavior.
• Sheldon Loman and Kathleen Strickland-Cohen (2013)
• Typical school personnel can assess and manage “Basic” individual
behavior challenges.
School-wide PBS
• Establishing additional supports for students with more
intense needs
Behavior Support Elements
*Response class
*Routine analysis
*Hypothesis statement
*Supporting data
*Alternative behaviors
*Competing behavior analysis
*Indicated, evidence-based interventions
*Contextual fit
*Strengths, preferences, & lifestyle outcomes
Problem
Behavior
Functional
Assessment
Intervention
& Support
Plan
*Implementation support
*Data plan
*Continuous improvement
*Sustainability plan
Fidelity of
Implementation
• Team-based
• Behavior competence
Impact on
Behavior &
Lifestyle
Lesson #8: Collect and use Data for
Active Decision-Making
• Give each team concrete measures that they can use to
determine if they are successful.
• Measure use of practices: www.pbisassessment.org
• Are we doing what we want to be doing?
•
•
•
•
Team Checklist
Benchmark of Quality
EBS Survey
SET
• Measure impact on valued outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
Office discipline referrals
Attendance
Suspension/Expulsion rates
Student academic achievement
Student Individual Intensive Supports