IL PBIS NetworkTier 2/3 Training Process

National PBIS Leadership Forum

Exemplar Presentation for Session B3

Building Trainer Competency for Secondary/Tertiary Systems

October 14, 201011:30 -12:45

Lucille Eber Ed.DStatewide Director, IL PBIS Network

www.pbisillinois.org

Context for Building Trainer Competencies

1. Systems

a) Continuum of Courses, Skill Sets, Competencies

b) Tot, Technical Assistance, Coaching

2. Data

a) System Tools: Tracking, Systems Response, BAT, ISSET,WIT

b) Outcome Data: SWIS/CICO, SIMEO, LRE

c) ‘Teaching/Learning’ Examples

3. Practices

a) Discovery Learning

b) Diversified Instruction

c) Facilitate activity-based training

d) Follow-up TA and case consultation to ‘correct’

Levels of Trainer Competencies

• Learning

• Content Fluent

• Co-Trainer

• Trainer

Trainer Level: Learning

• Is in the process of learning about this curriculum area.

Trainer Level: Content Fluent

• has participated in TOTs on current curriculum in this content area;

• provides effective technical assistance to coaches and teams in this content area, by seeking support from other trainers and co-trainers.

Trainer Level: Co-Trainer

• has used the tools with two or more coaches or teams;

• is comfortable with all content

• has the endorsement of a Training level staff member that they can train the systems, data/tools, practices of this content area.

Trainer Level: Trainer

• Fully understands the current curriculum in this content area, concepts, and tools and has used them with two or more teams;

• engaged in action planning and produced outcomes with this content;

• has exemplar samples of the completed content from teams;

• can write a data story on the content, • can train the curriculum solo.

Tier 2/3 Features that Impact Trainer Competencies

• Connected & Layered Systems/Data/Practices/ Across Tiers

• Full Continuum of Interventions

• Separate Multi-tiered Teaming Functions

• Emphasis on Role of Administrators

• Need for District Level System Structures

• Repositioning Specialized Services Staff

• Change in existing systems (Sp.Ed)

Primary Prevention:School-/Classroom-Wide Systems for

All Students,Staff, & Settings

Secondary Prevention:Specialized Group

Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior

Tertiary Prevention:Specialized

IndividualizedSystems for Students

with High-Risk Behavior

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR

SUPPORT

Ensuring Capacity at All 3 Tiers

Begin assessment and development of secondary and tertiary tiers sooner (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– Assess current teaming structures and identify

changes needed– Begin planning and training with select personnel

Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment

School-Wide Prevention Systems

SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T

Check-in/ Check-out

Individualized Check-In/Check-Out, Groups & Mentoring (ex. CnC)

Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)

Complex FBA/BIP

Wraparound

ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc.

Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals)

Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc.

Social/Academic Instructional Groups

A Response to Intervention (RtI) Application for Behavior

Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 2009Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

Tier 2/Secondary

Tier 3/Tertiary

Inte

rven

tio

nAssessm

en

t

Necessary Teaming Functions in a 3-Tiered System of Support

 

CICO

SAIG

Group w. individual

feature

Complex

FBA/BIP

Problem Solving Team

Tertiary Systems Team

Brief

FBA/BIP

Brief FBA/BIP

WRAP

Secondary Systems Team

Plans SW & Class-wide supports

Uses Process data; determines overall

intervention effectiveness

Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time

Uses Process data; determines overall

intervention effectiveness

Sept. 1, 2009

UniversalTeam

Universal Support

IL PBIS Network Tier 2/3 Trainer of Trainers (TOT)

Framework for providing TOT with diversified group of experienced PBIS implementers:

• What’s the same for you?

• What’s new to you?

• What’s more detailed information for you?

Tier 2/3 TOT Structure

• The designated “group leader” for each activity is to provide a 10-12 minute response to the scenario provided.

• The other group members are to listen, ask questions, and comment after the “leader” finishes their response.

• The assigned recorder for each group captures

the big ideas discussed/presented and records additional questions/answers generated by group. Recorder also is timekeeper.

Tier 2/3 TOT Structure (cont)

• Following the small group activity, a 10-15 minute presentation on the Secondary System Team and Process will be provided by the TOT Facilitators.

• Then all participants will individually address the following question:

– What would you change/modify about your group presentation and/or how you’ve presented/taught this material in the past? All write their reflections on the back of this sheet for 2 minutes and than group members will share their responses in their small group.

Scenario for Activity 1You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following

questions are asked?1. What does the Secondary Systems Team and process

look like?2. What does the Secondary Systems Team do at their

meetings?

Follow up Questions?1. When does this team actually talk about interventions for

individual kids?2. Our social worker already does a “lunch bunch” and an

anger management group? Can we keep those? Are we supposed to talk about those groups too?

3. Other follow-up questions from team members?

Teaming at Tier 2• Secondary Systems Planning ‘conversation’

– Monitors effectiveness of CICO, S/AIG, Mentoring, and Brief FBA/BIP supports

– Review data in aggregate to make decisions on improvements to the interventions themselves

– 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

Secondary Systems Planning Team Meeting Agenda

• Number of youth in CICO (record on TT)? – Number of youth responding (record on TT)?

* Send Reverse Request for Assistance to teachers of all youth not responding

– Number of new youth potentially entering intervention (share # of RFAs, Universal Screening info and/or youth who met the data-based decision-rule cut offs for Secondary support)?

• Repeat for S/AIG, Mentoring & Brief FBA/BIP• If less than 70% of youth are responding to any of the

interventions, the Secondary Systems team should review the integrity of the intervention and make adjustments as needed.

Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool• Structured to follow 6 levels/types of

interventions from Secondary through Tertiary• Increases accountability

– Schools have to count # of kids in interventions – Data-based decision-rules are necessary (Identify,

Progress-monitor, Exit)– Must define ‘response’ to each intervention type/level– Shows % of kids who responded to each intervention

• …..the tool assesses the success rate, or effectiveness of the interventions themselves

• Connects each level of intervention to the next level

Tier 2/Tier 3 Interventions Tracking Tool:Examples of

Data-based Decision-rules for Defining Response1. Responding to CICO: Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points

averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had no new ODRs. 2. Responding to Social/Academic instructional groups: Youth

received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had no new ODRs.

3. Responding to Simple Tier 2 with Individualized Features (i.e. CNC): Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had no new ODRs.

4. Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions: Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had no new ODRs.

5. Responding to Complex Function-based Interventions: Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had no new ODRs.

6. Responding to Wraparound Plans Youth received a total of 80% of DPR points averaged per day/week for 4 weeks and has had no new ODRs.

Social Skills/Academic Instructional Groups

• 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 generalized settings (ex. classroom, not in counseling session)

• Stakeholders (teachers, family etc.) should have input into success of intervention (ex. Daily Progress Report)

Critical Features

• Includes structured prompts for ‘what to do’ in relevant situations (transference and generalization)

• Results in student receiving positive feedback from staff

• Includes a school-home communication exchange system at least weekly

Critical Features• Linked directly to school-wide expectations

and/or academic goals

• Continuously available for student participation

• Can be implemented within 3 school days of determination that the student should receive the intervention

Scenario for Activity 2

• You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked:

1. Are we supposed to have a Tertiary Systems Planning Team also?

2. What is this team supposed to do?

3. Who is supposed to be on the Tertiary Systems Planning Team?

• Follow up Questions:1. Is the individual team for the student different for complex fba/bip

and wraparound?

2. How is the individual team different than an IEP team?

3. Aren’t those people on the Tertiary Systems Planning Team the same ones that would be on the individual child team?

4. Other follow-up questions from team members?

Teaming at Tier 3

• Tertiary Systems Planning ‘conversation’– Monitors effectiveness of Complex FBA/BIP &

Wraparound supports– Review data in aggregate to make decisions on

improvements to the interventions themselves– Students are NOT discussed

• Individual Student Teams– FBA/BIP Team per student– Wraparound Team per student

Systems-Response Tool“Finding” Students in Need of Tertiary Supports

• Records the “system’s response” to youth behavior/circumstance

• Administrators and team members need to find the #s of youth that meet each criteria– Using the tool IS engaging in a ‘systems-reflection’– Prevents the hiding or mis-labeling of youth (ex. “We

don’t have any kids that need Wraparound”)

Systems-Response ToolSystem Response Options Total # of Students in Category for Time Period: List date at top

of column & total # of youth in each box

Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date:

A. Students being monitored by Secondary Systems Team (ex. CICO, CnC, FBA/BIP)

B. Students being monitored by Tertiary Systems Team (ex. Complex FBA/BIP, Wraparound)

C. Students being considered for Special Education Testing

D. Students with Special Education process in progress (being tested, placement being considered, etc.)

E. Students that were tested and did not qualify for Special Education

F. Students suspended on one occasion

G. Students suspended on two or more separate occasions

H. Students placed (or at risk of placed) in separate setting or “Safe School” (ex. Alternative to suspension program)

I. Students in Special Education setting, out-of-home school

J. Students in “short-term” restrictive placement in clinical setting (hospitalization)

K. Students with expulsion hearing in progress

L. Students expelled

Scenario for Activity 3

• You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked:

1. What are some common mistakes coaches should watch for and “pre-correct” for as teams develop function-based BIPs using the Competing Behavior Pathway?

• Follow up Questions:1. What exactly does setting event mean?

2. The problem behavior and replacement behavior have to meet the same function. How can that happen?

3. Can’t we just do a BIP with a plan for consequences?

4. Other follow-up questions from team members?

RtI: Common MistakesRtI

• All students not experiencing success with Tier 1 supports enter CICO.

• All kids move along the continuum based on their response to intervention

• Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool includes all Tier 2 and 3 Interventions in your building

• All kids in Tier 2 supports are monitored by Tier 2 Systems Team and included in Tier 2/3 tracking Tool. Only one system for progress monitoring all kids.

Non-RtI • Direct referral for “Social Work

services”

• Direct referral to pre-referral special education meeting

• Some kids are receiving supports not represented on the Tier 2/3 Tracking Tool (talking with Social Worker, etc..)

• Kids with IEPs are monitored through special ed. process, not Tier 2 Systems Team. This is a separate progress monitoring system.

Scenario for Activity 4

• You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked?

1. How do we know if were supposed to do complex fba/bip or wraparound?

• Follow up Questions?1. So what is the difference between big need and function?

2. How do I go about assessing/determining what a student (and/or family)’s “ big needs” are?

Deciding Which Tertiary Level Intervention is Most Appropriate

Complex FBA/BIP (T200):• Brief FBA/BIP was not

successful

AND

• NONE of Wraparound criteria are present

Wraparound (T300+):• Youth with multiple needs

across home, school, community & life domains

• Youth at-risk for change of placement

• The adults in youth’s life are not effectively engaged in comprehensive planning (i.e. adults not getting along well)

Function• The purpose/reason for

demonstrating a specific type of behavior within a specific context/routine.

• Specific behaviors have been strengthened by consistent reinforcement.

• Family voice is not necessary to identify function of behavior in the school setting.

• Once Function is correctly identified, putting a plan in place can produce rapid behavior change. This can be accomplished in a single meeting.

Big Need• The underlying reason preventing

successful experiences/interactions in multiple settings/contexts/routines

• When a big quality of life need is unmet, it impacts perception/judgment, often resulting in chronic problem behavior.

• Family voice is necessary to identify the Big Need for the school setting.

• Once Big Need is identified, it takes a while to achieve and involves action planning across multiple life domains. Meeting the big need always involves multiple Child & Family Team meetings.

Function• Function is identified through

structured interviews focusing on the problem behavior, antecedents, consequences, and setting events

• Focus is on developing function-based support plan (replacement behavior, antecedent, consequence, and setting event supports).

• When achieved, situations improve for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher).

Big Need• Big needs are identified through

open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools with those engaged with the youth on a regular basis.

• Big Need statements motivate a family to participate on the team (know we are working on something ‘bigger’ than specific behaviors).

• If met, the need will improve quality of life for the youth or those engaged with the youth on a regular basis (e.g., the family, the teacher).

Big Need: “Andy needs to feel like he belongs at school”

• School Behaviors: Aggressive with peers, excessive absences/tardies, history of academic failure

• Other indicators: Family frequently relocated, lack of home school communication, community support needs

Starting with FBA would not have been an effective approach—why?– Discussing problem behaviors would not have motivated family to

participate on team.– Probably not the first time schools have approached family in this

manner (“let’s talk about behavior”)– Open-ended conversation and use of SIMEO tools helped engage family– Bigger needs to work on to improve quality of life for youth and family

Other Techniques for Building Trainer Competency at Tier 2/3

• Share ‘Lessons Learned’• Facilitate ‘Difficult Conversations’• Ex. Of Old Approach-New Approach • Use of Data • Reflection Questions/Activities• Quick Self-assessment Activities• Developing Learning/Teaching Examples

– Supervision/TA, Quarterly Reports, – Advanced Learning Community

Examples of these Techniques from IL Tier 2/3 Curriculum used with

• Trainers

• TA Facilitators

• Coaches

• Administrators

• District/Community Teams

• Building Teams

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

Examples of Ineffective Secondary/Tertiary Structures

• Referrals to Sp. Ed. seen as the “intervention”

• FBA seen as required “paperwork” vs. a needed part of designing an intervention

• Interventions the system is familiar with vs. ones likely to produce an effect – (ex: student sent for insight based counseling at

point of misbehavior)

Integrating mental health into RTI in Schools

Old Approach New 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.

• 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 small groups based on data;

• MH person co-facilitates FBA/BIP or wrap individual teams for students.

What’s New in Wraparound?

• 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

Tertiary Demo School Reduces ODRs & Increases Simple Secondary Interventions

36

551

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Aug to Nov 2006 Aug to Nov 2007

num

be

r o

f st

ud

ents

2-5 ODRs 6+ ODRs CICO*

*CICO = Check in, Check Out

Tertiary Demos

Students with IEPs Spending more than 80% of School Day in General Education Setting

50.32

49.3

48.5

49

49.5

50

50.5

State TargetRatio

District Ratio

Ra

tio

Students with IEPs Served in Separate Placements

102122

7.48

4.91 4.58

9.01

0

2

4

6

8

10

FY07 FY08

Ra

tio

90

100

110

120

130

# o

f Stu

de

nts

Students w/ IEPs in separate placementsDistrict Ratio State Target

Administrators Need to…

– Know what the practices look like when implemented with fidelity;

– Be aware of data at all three tiers; help decide what needs to change;

– Be active/visible on teams;– Apply high-level problem-solving skills

troubleshooting systems level issues;– Be “hands on” with at least the first few

tertiary plans.

Dealing with the Tough Issues

• Adult response to problem behavior.– Adults need to model being respectful in their

communications with students around behavior.

– non-examples that need correcting?

• School personnel should not get to choose NOT to give students evidenced based interventions.

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Tertiary Interventions____________________________________________________________________________

Tertiary Interventions________________________________________________________________________

Secondary Interventions____________________________________________________________________________

Secondary Interventions____________________________________________________________________________

Universal Interventions________________________________________________________________________

Universal Interventions________________________________________________________________________

Behavioral and Academic Interventions at All Tiers A Response to Intervention Model

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Tertiary Data____________________________________________________________________________

Tertiary Data________________________________________________________________________

Secondary Data____________________________________________________________________________

Secondary Data____________________________________________________________________________

Universal Data________________________________________________________________________

Universal Data________________________________________________________________________

Behavioral and Academic Data at All Tiers A Response to Intervention Model

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Quick Assessment of Student Access to Intervention

• Total enrollment?

• Number of students on CICO?

• Percent of total?

Quick Assessment of Current Teaming Structures?

• How many students did you discuss in your SST or TAT last year?

• How many of the students brought up and discussed at the team accessed interventions that had documented success?

Quick Assessment of Student Access to Intervention

• Total enrollment of your school?

• Number of students on complex function-based or wraparound plans?

• Percent of total population of the school?

Remember: No Data? No intervention!

Reflection

How can the multi-tiered teaming model in your schools/districts become more efficient and effective?

Reflection

• How will you know if integrated partnerships are successful at a building level? What will it “look” like?

• At a district level?