SWPBS:
Where Did the Triangle
Come From?
George Sugai
OSEP Center on PBIS
University of Connecticut
May 17, 2006
www.pbis.org
www.swis.org
George.sugai@uconn.edu
OBJECTIVES
•
Celebrate your accomplishments
& progress
•
Review SWPBS features that
relate to sustainability &
expansion
•
Look at some recent data
OSEP Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions &
Supports
• USF, KU, UK, MU, UNC, UF, UO &
UConn
• IL EBD-PBIS Network, ShepperdPratt, May Institute
• www.pbis.org
Center Logic: SWPBS
Successful individual student
behavior support is linked to
host environments or school
climates that are effective,
efficient, relevant, & durable
(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
PBS Foundations
Behaviorism
ABA
PBS
• Behavior & physiology
• Learned behavior
• Behavior & environment
• Behavior lawfulness
• Observable behavior
• Socially important questions
• Applied settings
• Functional relationship
Continuum of
Behavior Support
Science of
Human
Behavior
Systems
Change &
Durability
Local Context
& Culture
PBS
Features
Natural
Implementers
Prevention Logic
EvidenceBased
Practices
Supporting Social Competence &
Academic Achievement
4 PBS
Elements
OUTCOMES
Supporting
Decision
Making
Supporting
Staff Behavior
PRACTICES
Supporting
Student Behavior
CONTINUUM OF
SCHOOL-WIDE
INSTRUCTIONAL &
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
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
Designing School-Wide Systems
for Student Success
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
1-5%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
5-10%
80-90%
1-5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Brief Primer on “Triangle”
Why?
• It’s showing up beyond Center
website
• “Basics” are being overlooked
• It’s a guide, not a standard
Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Lynn, N.
(2006). School-based mental health: An
empirical guide for decision makers. Tampa,
FL: University of South Florida. The Louis De
la Parte Florida mental Health Institute,
Department of Child and Family Studies,
Research and Training Center for Children’s
Mental Health.
http://rtckids.fmhi.usf.edu
“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 did those % come from?
Original logic: Public Health & Disease
Prevention
Commission on Chronic Illness, 1957; Larson, 1994;
Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994)
• 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
Prevention Logic for All
(Walker et al., 1996)
• Decrease development of new problem
behaviors
• Prevent worsening of existing problem
behaviors
• Redesign learning/teaching environments
to eliminate triggers & maintainers of
problem behaviors
• Teach, monitor, & acknowledge prosocial
behavior
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODR rate 04-05
673 schools Grades K-6 (292,021 students)
100%
3 (4)
9 (6)
90%
80%
70%
88 (10)
60%
6+ ODRs
50%
2-5 ODRs
40%
0-1 ODR
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 04-05
255 schools, Grades 6-9 (170,700 students)
9 (7)
100%
90%
16 (7)
80%
70%
75 (13)
60%
6+ ODRs
50%
'2-5 ODRs
40%
'0-1 ODRs
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 04-05
67 schools, Grades 9-12 (62,244 students)
100%
11 (12)
90%
20 (12)
80%
70%
60%
6+ ODRs
50%
'2-5 ODRs
69 (21)
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
'0-1 ODRs
Mean Percentage of Students by Major ODRs 04-05
167 schools, Grades K- (8-12) (65,862 students)
100%
8 (8)
90%
15 (12)
80%
70%
60%
77 (16)
6+ ODRs
50%
'2-5 ODRs
40%
'0-1 ODRs
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
SWIS summary 04-05 (Majors Only)
1210 schools, 595,742 students
Grade Range
Number of
Schools
Number of
Students
Mean ODRs
per 100 per
school day
K-6
673
292,021
.39 (sd=.43)
Mean = 434
6-9
255
170,700
.96 (sd=.72)
Mean = 669
9-12
67
62,244
1.28 (sd=1.32)
Mean = 929
K-(8-12)
167
65,862
.88 (sd=.96)
Mean = 394
Alt/JJ
48
3,915
Mean = 82
11.89 (9.03)
SWIS summary 04-05
(Out of school suspensions [OSS]…Events)
Grade Range
Number of
Schools
Number of
Students
Mean OSS per
100 students
K-6
673
292,021
11.35 (18)
Mean = 434
6-9
255
170,700
46.38 (55)
Mean = 669
9-12
67
62,244
54 (84)
Mean = 929
K-(8-12)
167
65,862
34 (48)
Mean = 394
Alt/JJ
48
3,915
Mean = 82
241 (216)
SWIS summary 04-05
(Out of school suspensions [OSS]…Days)
Grade Range
Number of
Schools
Number of
Students
Mean Days of
OSS per 100
students
K-6
673
292,021
10.9 (19)
Mean = 434
6-9
255
170,700
60 (72)
Mean = 669
9-12
67
62,244
67 (67)
Mean = 929
K-(8-12)
167
65,862
n/a
Mean = 394
Alt/JJ
48
3,915
Mean = 82
314 (374)
What’s SWPBS look like?
• Team- & data-based school-wide
implementation
• 3-4 year commitment for systems change
• Small # positively stated expectations (within
1 min.) visible, defined, taught, & encouraged
• >80% of kids/adults state expectations & give
behavioral example in context
• >80% of kids receive at least weekly
acknowledgement
• >70% of kids received 0 or 1 major
disciplinary referral
• <10% received >2 major disciplinary referrals
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS:
“Getting Started”
Team
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
Working Smarter Team Matrix
Initiative,
Project,
Committee
Attendance
Committee
Character
Education
Safety
Committee
School Spirit
Committee
Discipline
Committee
DARE
Committee
EBS Work
Group
Purpose
Outcome
Target
Group
Staff
Involved
SIP/SID/
etc
Sample Team Matrix
Initiative,
Committee
Purpose
Outcome
Target
Staff
SIP/SID
Group Involved
Attendance
Committee
Increase
attendance
Increase % of students
attending daily
All
students
Eric, Ellen,
Marlee
Goal #2
Character
Education
Improve
character
Improve character
All
students
Marlee,
J.S., Ellen
Goal #3
Safety
Committee
Improve
safety
Predictable response to
threat/crisis
All
students
Has not
met
Goal #3
School Spirit
Committee
Enhance
school spirit
Improve morale
All
students
Has not
met
Discipline
Committee
Improve
behavior
Decrease office
referrals
All
students
Ellen, Eric,
Marlee,
Otis
DARE
Committee
Prevent drug
use
All
students
Don
EBS Work
Group
Implement 3tier model
All
students
Eric, Ellen, Goal #2
Marlee,
Goal #3
Otis, Emma
Decrease office
referrals, increase
attendance, enhance
academic engagement,
improve grades
Goal #3
Data: Big Ideas
• Always develop questions first
• Accuracy of data linked to quality of
data systems
• Context matters…interpret available
data on local context
• Link intervention decisions to local data
interpretations & desired outcomes
School-wide Positive
Behavior Support
Systems
Classroom
Setting Systems
School-wide
Systems
Evidence-based
Practices
SW PBS Practices
SCHOOLWIDE
•
Classroom-wide positive expectations taught &
encouraged
•
Teaching classroom routines & cues taught &
encouraged
Continuum of procedures for encouraging
expected behavior
•
Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adult-student
interaction
Continuum of procedures for discouraging
inappropriate behavior
•
Active supervision
•
Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior errors
Procedures for on-going monitoring & evaluation
•
Frequent precorrections for chronic errors
•
Effective academic instruction & curriculum
1
Common purpose & approach to discipline
2.
Clear set of positive expectations & behaviors
3.
Procedures for teaching expected behavior
4.
5.
6.
CLASSROOM-WIDE
SECONDARY/TERTIARY INDIVIDUAL
NONCLASSROOM SETTINGS
•
•
Positive expectations & routines taught &
encouraged
•
Behavioral competence at school & district levels
•
Function-based behavior support planning
Active supervision by all staff
•
Team- & data-based decision making
•
Comprehensive person-centered planning &
wraparound processes
•
Targeted social skills & self-management instruction
•
Individualized instructional & curricular
accommodations
–
Scan, move, interact
•
Precorrections & reminders
•
Positive reinforcement
“Ohio Integrated Systems Model for
Academic & Behavior Supports”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Big Ideas in Beginning Reading
DIBELS
Florida Center for Reading Research
Institute for the Development of Educational
Achievement
National Center for Culturally Responsive
Educational Systems
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
Oregon Reading First
Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports
School Wide Information Systems (SWIS)
What Works Clearinghouse
Other SWPBS Outcomes
ODR Admin. Benefit
Springfield MS, MD
2001-2002
2277
2002-2003
1322
= 955 42% improvement
= 14,325 min. @15 min.
= 238.75 hrs
= 40 days Admin. time
ODR Instruc. Benefit
Springfield MS, MD
2001-2002
2277
2002-2003
1322
= 955 42% improvement
= 42,975 min. @ 45 min.
= 716.25 hrs
= 119 days Instruc. time
PBIS Messages
• Measurable & justifiable outcomes
• On-going data-based decision
making
• Evidence-based practices
• Systems ensuring durable, high
fidelity of implementation
Have a great school year!
George.sugai@uconn.edu
www.pbis.org
www.swis.org