WI Coaches forum August 2013
Lucille Eber IL PBIS Network www.pbisillinois.org
 This is a presentation of the IL PBIS Network. All rights reserved.

• Context for Tier 2/3 systems development
• The Tier 2/3 Readiness Process
• Teaming Model & Examples of Interventions
• Tools to Support Tier 2/3
• A Tier 3 Coaching and TA Process

IL Tier 2/3 Tools
Available at PBISILLINOIS.org
1. Tier 2/3 Readiness Tools
2. Guiding Questions
3. Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool
4. Reverse Request for Assistance
5. IL PoI Tool
6. System Response Tool
7. Tier 3 Wraparound Follow-up Checklists
Resources Available at www.pbis.org
Building Tier 2 / Tier 3 Capacity within A PBIS System of Support:
Model Development and Lessons Learned
Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers

• Guiding Questions Tool
• Secondary/Tertiary Tracking Tool
• Systems Response Tool
• Phases of Implementation (PoI)
• Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers

SCHOOL-WIDE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT:
What is meant by
“layering” interventions?
~5%
~15%
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior
Primary Prevention:
School-/Classroom-
Wide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students

10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
More Students Access Tier 2/3
Interventions When Tier 1/ Universal is in Place
FY09 School Profile Tool
Students Accessing Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions
4.95%
7.94%
Partially Implementing
(n=26)
Fully Implementing
(n=125)

 Need to “deconstruct” some existing teaming approaches and practices
 Data not being used except to justify placements

• Tier 2/3 Readiness Checklists
• Secondary/Tertiary Tracking Tool
• Reverse Request for Assistance
• Systems Response Tool
• Guiding Questions Document
• Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers (BAT)

• 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

1. Referrals to Sp. Ed. seen as the
“intervention”
2. FBA seen as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention
3. Interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect
 (Ex: student sent for insight based counseling at point of misbehavior)

 District-level support is necessary for successful building-level Tier 2 & 3 implementation
 District commitments should be in place before
Tier 2/3 training occurs
 Building-level leaders should be aware and supportive of what Tier 2/3 requires

• 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 (FBA/Wrap)
• Tertiary Coaching Capacity
• Facilitators for complex FBA/BIP and wraparound teams

• Differentiated Teaming Structures
 Across all 3 Tiers
 Assigned roles for Coordination/Facilitation
• A Full Continuum of Interventions
 Scaling up and down the continuum
• Universal Screening
 Beyond ODRs
• Ongoing Use of More Specified Data
 Tools for Monitoring Systems and Outcomes

Coordinator
• Organizes and/or oversees the specific interventions such as
CICO, S/AIG & Group with Individual
Features
• Roles include: scheduling meetings, review & collect data to share during team meetings, etc…
Facilitator
• Directly provides intervention support services to youth/families
• Roles include: meeting with students for CICO, running groups

 Where is your district/school(s) with regards to the readiness criteria?

Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
ODRs,
Attendance,
Tardies, Grades,
DIBELS, etc.
Daily Progress
Report (DPR)
(Behavior and Academic Goals)
Competing Behavior
Pathway, Functional
Assessment Interview,
Scatter Plots, etc.
Individual Student
Information System (ISIS)
Tier 2/
Secondary
Check-in
Check-out (CICO)
Social/Academic
Instructional Groups (SAIG)
Tier 3/
Tertiary
Group Intervention with
Individualized Feature
(e.g., Check and Connect - CnC and Mentoring)
Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/
Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)
Complex or Multiple-domain FBA/BIP
SIMEO Tools:
HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Wraparound Illinois PBIS Network, Revised October 2009
Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

• 7-15% : Percent of total population expected to need and be supported by Tier 2 interventions
• 1-5% : Percent of total population expected to need and be supported by Tier 3 interventions
• 70% : Percent of youth (receiving intervention “X”) that should be responding to intervention
• Data-based Decision-Rules for ‘determining response’ must be defined
 Data sources defining response are efficient
• Ex. Daily Progress Report (DPR) cards: Student maintains an 80% average on DPR for 4 weeks

 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.
Kids who here-tofor 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

Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases
Simple Secondary Interventions
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
36
5 5
Aug to Nov 2006
1
Aug to Nov 2007
2-5 ODRs 6+ ODRs CICO*
*
CICO = Check in, Check Out

This is an intervention that adds support to generic CICO.
Teachers choose these more individualized options on the reverse request for assistance
(RRFA).
Teachers are given the option to choose from these features after CICO was not enough support for a student.

What it is
• Options are pre-determined and communicated to all stakeholders.
What it isn’t
• Changing the goal line one child at a time
• Secondary systems team designs the options for the building.
• Changing or adding a goal for one child
• Quick & Efficient
• A list of specified options teachers can choose from listed on the reverse request for assistance
• Changing the goals on the
Daily Progress Report for one child or a group of children
• A meeting with the specialized staff and the teacher changing a student’s DPR.

What it is
• Used after generic CICO has been tried for a set time (for example 4-6 weeks) and the student has not met the pre-determined goal set for all children.
• Options for individualizing the intervention are generic and quick
What it isn’t
• One adult changing/ adding goals or DPR
• Changing or adding a goal for a group of kids
(homework, grades, or a specific behavior).
• Uses the same DPR as used in generic CICO

Example one:
Extra check in time before/after lunch with secretary in office
Example two:
Peer accompanies student to check in at beginning of day and check out at end of day
Example three:
Check in with supportive adult prior to a difficult class period

This is an intervention that is designed after a Functional
Behavioral Assessment is completed and created with the problem solving team as part of a Behavior
Intervention Plan.
This intervention is specific to the child.

• Selection into groups should be based on youths’ reaction to life circumstance not existence of life circumstances (ex. fighting with peers, not family divorce)
• Goals for improvement should be common across youth in same group (ex. use your words)
• Data should measure if skills are being USED in natural settings, not in counseling sessions (transference of skills to classroom, café etc.)
• Stakeholders (teachers, family etc.) should have input into success of intervention (ex. Daily Progress Report)

Brief
• Generic Individual
Problem solving Team
Complex
• Individualized Youth
FBA/BIP Team
• Meeting time/day usually already determined
• Plan developed quickly/easily
• Meeting time/day decided by individualized team
• Interventions are highly individualized

Brief
• Every school has this type of meeting
Complex
• May be a new type of meeting for schools
• Behavior intervention plans address only one behavior, typically only in one setting
• Interventions/ strategies address multiple settings and/or behaviors

Brief
• SWIS data, Daily Progress
Report (DPR) points,
Functional Assessment interviews
Complex
• SWIS data, Daily Progress
Report (DPR) points, Functional
Assessment interviews, SIMEO
Data, direct observation data, additional tools as needed
• Effectiveness of system monitored by Secondary
Systems Planning Team
• Effectiveness of system monitored by Tertiary Systems
Planning Team
• Data reviewed at least every other week • Data reviewed at least weekly

• Total enrollment of your school?
• Number of students accessing CICO?
• Number of students on complex functionbased or wraparound plans?
• Percent of total population of the school?

• Are unique to the individual child & family
 Blend the family’s supports with the school representatives who know the child best
• Meeting Process
 Meet frequently
 Regularly develop & review interventions
• Facilitator Role
 Role of bringing team together
 Role of blending perspectives

• Who?
 Youth with multiple needs across home, school, community
 Youth with multiple life domain needs
 The adults in youth’s life are not effectively engaged in comprehensive planning
(i.e. adults not getting along very well)
• What?
 The development of a very unique, individualized, strength-based team & plan with the youth family that is designed to improve quality of life as defined by the youth/family.

What Do Tertiary Plans include?
Supports and interventions across multiple life domains and settings (i.e. behavior support plans, academic interventions, basic living supports, multi-agency strategies, family supports, community supports, etc.)
What’s Different?
Natural supports and unique strengths are emphasized in team and plan development. Youth/family access, voice, ownership are critical features. Plans include supports for adults/family, as well as youth.

• Wraparound is a tool (e.g. a process) used to implement interagency systems of care in achieving better outcomes for youth and their families.
• The wraparound process is similar to person-centered planning, the individualized Positive Behavior Support
(PBS) planning process.

• 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.
• Wraparound plans include natural supports, are culturally relevant, practical and realistic.

• 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

• Skill set specificity
• Focus on intervention design/effectiveness
• Integration with school-wide PBS
• Phases to guide implementation/supervision
• Data-based decision-making
• Integrity/fidelity assessment (WIT)
• Tools to guide teams:
 Home School Community
 Education Information Tool

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-school-community)

…..that builds system capacity for advanced tiers

• Secondary Systems Planning Team
• Secondary (Generic) Problem Solving Team
• Tertiary Systems Planning Team
• Individual Youth FBA/BIP Team
• Wraparound Team
• District Tertiary Leadership Team

Universal
Team
Meeting
Plans schoolwide & classroom supports
3-Tiered System of Support
Necessary Conversations (Teams)
Secondary
Systems Team
Meeting
Uses process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness
Problem Solving
Team Meeting
Standing team; uses
FBA/BIP process for one student at a time
Tertiary Systems
Team Meeting
Uses process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness
Universal
Support
Check-In
Check-Out
Skills
Groups
Group w. individual feature
Brief
FBA/BIP
Brief
FBA/BIP
Complex
FBA/BIP
Wraparound
Illinois PBIS Network
Rev. 11.19.2012

 Secondary Systems Planning ‘conversation’
 Monitors effectiveness of CICO, S/AIG,
Mentoring, and Brief FBA/BIP supports
 Review data to make decisions on improvements to the interventions
 Individual students are NOT discussed
 Problem Solving Team ‘conversation’
 Develops plans for one student at a time
 Every school has this type of meeting
 Teachers and family are typically invited

 Is the idea of separating out functions
(progress monitoring, brief problemsolving, complex interventions, etc) new to your districts/schools?

Teams need to track and monitor interventions by category:
1. How many students are receiving each intervention?
2. How many students are responding to each intervention?
3. What data is used to monitor each intervention type?
Tier 2/Tier 3 (Secondary/Tertiary) Tracking Tool

• Review Tracking Tool & Systems Response Tools.
How can these tools help your school(s) to identify strengths and weaknesses of their Tier
2/3 systems of support?
• How will you encourage/prompt others to use these data for progress monitoring system responses that need to change?
• How will you encourage/prompt others to use data for progress monitoring Interventions at
Tiers 2/3?

Gate 1
Implementation Process Summary:
Multiple Gating Procedure
(Adapted from Severson et al. 2007)
Teachers Rank Order then Select Top 3 Students on Each Dimension
(Externalizing & Internalizing)
Gate 2
Pass Gate 1
Teachers Rate Top 3
Students in Each Dimension
(Externalizing & Internalizing)
Using a Research-Validated
Tool (e.g., SSBD, BASC-
2/BESS, SDQ)
Pass Gate 2
Tier 2
Intervention

Universal Screening: Suggested Features
• Obtain district and building level buy-in for universal screening (e.g., build case for links between student mental health and academic performance)
• Build, or strengthen Tier 2 systems and practices (use selfassessment tools, e.g. BAT to monitor progress)
• Inform parents/guardians of upcoming screening process
• Use teacher nomination process to initially identify students demonstrating internalizing/externalizing behaviors
• Incorporate a validated screener that can reliably identify a broad range of externalizing and internalizing behaviors
• Obtain consent for students meeting screening criteria
• Monitor student response to intervention regularly and use data to determine next steps

 Increased focus on building capacity for school-based T2 and T3 supports
 FBA-BIP support
 Kathleen Strickland-Cohen, Ph.D.
 strickla@uoregon.edu
 Address some of the most common errors in BSP development

• “Stuck” on setting events beyond the control of the school,
• Student does not take medication at home
• ID factors the school can impact
• Skipping the replacement behavior
• Must have a alternative or replacement behavior that student is taught, practiced, reinforced
• Inadequate density for teaching and/or opportunities to practice replacement skill
• Insufficient density of reinforcement
• EX: If you’re good all week, you can have a soda on Friday

• The problem behavior is not operationally defined:
• Observable, countable, measurable
• Aggressive versus hits other peers during unstructured time on a daily basis
• There is more than one function
•
• Lack of accurate identification of routines in which problem behavior occurs
• Lack of contextually fit strategies in 3 areas
• Antecedent: Preventing problem behavior,
• Behavior: teaching replacement and desired behaviors
• Consequence: BOTH
• Minimizing reinforcement of problem behavior
• Reinforcing the use of desired/alternative behavior

Redefining the Role of the Behavior Specialist
District Behavior
Specialist
Train and coach use of
EBP at the school-wide and individual student level
Support
Teams building behavior support plans from
Assessment information
Train 2-3 people per school to conduct
“Basic”
FBA/BSP

 How would this model of rethinking District
Behavior Specialist work within your district?
 Can you think of a handful of teachers who could conduct basic FBAs?
 Could your team use support in aligning
BSPs with FBAs?
 How do/can you apply principles of instruction to supporting your team / staff?

Complex FBA/BIP
Wraparound
Wrap-based RENEW

 Phase 1: Modeling - Coach models the desired skills and competencies
 Phase 2: Support and Feedback - Coach provides support and feedback
 Phase 3: Monitoring – Coach monitors to ensure fidelity
DO FOR – DO WITH – CHEER ON

IL Coaching Plan for Tier 3 Interventions
 Coaches & Facilitators participate in intervention specific training
Facilitator/s begin implementing intervention immediately (i.e. identify youth within week or two of training)
 ECs connect with Tier 3 Facilitators to answer questions, ensure youth are identified & Tier 3 processes are starting, and ensure Facilitators are signed up for Adobe Connect Tier 3 TA
 Within several weeks of training, Facilitators and External Coaches participate in an Adobe Connect Tier 3 TA group call
 Facilitators continue to participate in Adobe Connect Tier 3 TA group calls monthly until fluent with the intervention
 ECs continue to participate in Adobe Connect Tier 3 TA group calls monthly until fluent with providing Tier 3 TA themselves
 ECs sustain process of providing intensive Tier 3 TA for their district/s
 Facilitators & coaches may be invited to participate in a Tertiary
Learning Community (TLC)

 Trainers connect with External Coaches (EC)
 External Coaches gather Tier 3 plans from Tier 3 Facilitators and forwards to Trainers
 Trainer uses track changes to highlight positive notes, comments/questions, and corrections to each plan submitted and sends back to External Coaches to give back to Facilitators
 Coaches should review edited to plans to learn how to replicate this process in future
 Trainer selects 2-3 plans to review on each call
 Facilitators of those plans are on the call to receive the TA
 Other Facilitators listen/observe to make or understand edits to their own plans
 ECs listen/observe to learn how to replicate this process in future
 Process repeats for as many rounds as Coaches & Facilitators need

 Have you chosen your first child/family, describe
 How did you engage the family? Where did you meet? What questions did they have? How did you describe wraparound?
 What tools have you used to gather information ?
(i.e. EI-T, HSC-T,) Describe your experience with the tools
 Describe the strengths inventory process.
 Share the big need, how did you determine the big need?