Date post: | 25-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | quentin-hardy |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 3 times |
Scaling and Sustaining PBIS:State, District, School Roles
Rob HornerUniversity of Oregon
www.pbis.org
Goals• Current status and lessons learned from states
scaling and sustaining PBIS.
• Specific suggestions for state, district and school personnel implementing PBIS (or any MTSS)
• -----------------------------------------------------------------------
• School/ District Self-Assessment
• State/District (District Capacity Assessment)
Assumptions• Knowledgeable about PBIS
• Demonstrations of effective implementation
• Read to focus on sustainability, scaling and building PBIS at all three tiers.
Why SWPBIS?
•The fundamental purpose of SWPBIS is to make schools more effective learning environments.
Predictable
Consistent
Positive
Safe
Main Messages• PBIS is a foundation for the next generation of
education.Effective (academic, behavior)
Equitable (all students succeed) Efficient (time, cost)
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
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 Bradshaw, Pas, Goldweber, Rosenberg, & Leaf, 2012Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., McCoach D.B., Sugai, G., Lombardi, A., & Horner, ( submitted) Implementation Effects of School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports on Academic, Attendance, and Behavior Outcomes in High Schools.
SWPBIS Experimentally Related to:1. Reduction in problem behavior2. Increased academic performance3. Increased attendance4. Improved perception of safety5. Reduction in bullying behaviors
6. Improved organizational efficiency7. Reduction in staff turnover8. Increased perception of teacher efficacy
9. Improved Social Emotional competence
Current Status
• Multiple Models for Scaling
Leadership Team
FundingVisibility Political
Support
Training Coaching Evaluation
Local School Demonstrtions
Active Coordination
TechnicalExpertise
Policy
Implementation Science Frameworks
WHO
Teams
WHEN
Stages
HOW
Drivers
HOW
Cycles
WHAT
Interventions
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
Performance Assessment (Fidelity)
Coaching
Training
Selection
Systems Intervention
Facilitative Administration
Decision Support Data System
ImplementationDrivers
Com
pete
ncy
Dri
vers
Com
pete
ncy
Dri
vers
Organization D
rivers
Organization D
rivers
LeadershipLeadership
Adaptive Technical
Successful Student Outcomes
Program/Initiative/Framework (e.g. RtI)
Implementation Stages
• Exploration• Installation• Initial Implementation• Full Implementation
Implementation occurs in stages:
Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005
2 – 3 Years
Stages of ImplementationFocus 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!
Should we do it!
Steve Goodman
Scaling up School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports:The Experiences of Seven States with Documented SuccessRob Horner, Don Kincaid, George Sugai, Tim Lewis, Lucille Eber, Susan Barrett, Celeste Rossetto Dickey, Mary Richter, Erin Sullivan, Cyndi Boezio, Nancy Johnson, (2014 ), JPBI
Exploration Installation Initial Imp Full Imp
Leadership Team
Funding
Visibility
Political Support
Policy
Training
Coaching
Expertise
Evaluation
Demos
Interviews and Data Reviews with
the PBIS implementers from
Seven States that had at least
500 schools using PBIS.
Exploration and Adoption
Installation Initial Implementation
Full Implementation
Innovation and sustainability
Leadership Team
(coordination)
Do you have a state leadership team?
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 self-assessment completed (e.g. the PBIS Implementation Blueprint Assessment)?
What was the role of State agency personnel in the exploration phase?
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?
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
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
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /Full Imp & Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Missouri
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
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Exploration / Installation /Initial Imp / Full Imp & Innovate
Descriptive Summary: North
Carolina
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Colorado
02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-110
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Exploration / Installation / Initial & Full Imp / Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Florida
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-100
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Exploration/ Installation/ Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Maryland
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp / Full Imp / Innovate
Descriptive Summary: Illinois
98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-110
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Exploration / Installation / Initial Imp /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
• Both Bottom Up and Top Down
• Threats to Scaling:o Competing initiativeso The seductive lure of the “new idea”o Leadership turnovero Legislative mandateso Fiscal constraint
Regular Dissemination of
Fidelity and Impact data is the best
“protective factor” for threats to scaling
Lessons Learned• Scaling requires planned efficiency
o 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.
o Jennifer Coffey, 2008
Sustainability• Most educational innovations do not endure beyond 9
months
• The likelihood of sustaining is NOT related to effectiveness
• Achieving Sustainability is essential for cost effectiveness and scaling up to levels of social importance.
• The variables that affect sustaining implementation are not necessarily the variables that affect initial adoption.
(Latham, 1988)
Research on PBIS Sustainability
• Coffey & Horner, 2012• Exceptional Children, 78, 407-422.
• Sample: 285 schools with SET scores--------------------------------------------------------• What predicted INITIAL Adopt of PBIS
• What predicted SUSTAINED use of PBIS
A PBIS Sustainability Study
(Coffey & Horner, 2012)
Never met SET (<80%)
Met SET (≥80%)
Implementers vs. Non-implementers
SET Subscale SET Overall
Expectations Defined
Reward System
Responding to Violations
Management (team and admin)
District-Level Support
Monitoring and Decision-Making
Expectations Taught
Met and lost SET in
5 years
Sustained SET for ≥5
years
Sustainers vs. Non-sustainers
SET Subscale SET Overall
Expectations Defined
Responding to Violations
District-Level Support
Monitoring and Decision-Making
Expectations Taught
Reward SystemManagement
(team and admin)
Perceived Importance of Contextual Features for Sustainability of PBIS
• McIntosh, K., Predy, L., Upreti, G., Hume, A. E. & Mathews, S. (2014). Perceptions of contextual features related to implementation and sustainability of School-wide Positive Behavior Support. Journal of Positive behavior Interventions, 16, 29-41.
1. School administrators actively support PBIS
2. School administrators describes PBIS as a top priority for the school
3. A school administrator regularly attends and participates in PBIS team meetings
4. The PBIS school team is well organized and operates efficiently
5. The school administrators ensure that the PBIS team has regularly scheduled time to meet
Most Important Features for
Sustainability
• Recent studies on sustainability of PBSo Perceptions of critical features for sustainability
(McIntosh, Predy, Hume, Turri, & Mathews, in press)o Factors predicting sustainability
(McIntosh et al., in press)o Critical features of PBS systems
(Mathews, McIntosh, Frank, & May, under review)
Research on Sustainability
Building Capacity
• State
• District
• School
• Classroom Traditional Behavior/ Classroom Management
Initial PBIS
Current PBIS
SISEP and Scaling UP
Districts• Coherent District Policy
o Social behavior is a priority in district improvement plano District commitment to selecting practices that are evidence-basedo District process for aligning multiple initiatives.
• Evaluation Capacityo Data systems that inform decision-making and provide policy feedback
** Fidelity and Impact
• Recruitment, Hiring, Evaluationo “Preference will be given to individuals with knowledge and experience
in implementation of multi-tiered academic and behavior supports.”
WHAT
Interventions
HOW
Cycles
Team Based Implementation
WHO
Teams
Districts
• Annual Faculty/Staff Orientationo Defines PBIS as a priorityo Defines what to expect in a school using PBIS.o 30-60 min of annual orientation
• Professional Development (Training)o PD is always tied to core improvement goalso PD typically involves distributed training (multiple events)o PD is always linked to on-site coaching.o PD is always linked to fidelity measure
• Coaching
HOW
Drivers
Districts
• Annual Faculty/Staff Evaluationso Evaluations include assessment of “implementation of multi-tiered
systems of academic and behavior support.”
• Build Technical Capacity to Implement Tier II and Tier III supports
• -----------------------------------------------------------• Assessing District Capacity
o The District Capacity Assessment (DCA)
Team
1.1 Team Authority: Tier I planning team exists, and meets at least monthly to use implementation fidelity and student outcome data to manage universal, school-wide support systems.
School organizational chart
Tier I systems planning team meeting minutes
Fidelity tool(s)
0 = No team identified to manage and monitor Tier I supports
1 = PBIS Team in place but does review data regularly
2 = PBIS Team exists with the authority to implement at least Tier I PBIS, and has at least monthly meetings with access to fidelity and student outcome data to guide action planning
Feature Data Sources
Scoring Criteria
0 = Not implemented1 = Partially implemented2 = Fully implemented
Implementation
1.4 Behavioral Expectations: School has five or fewer positively stated behavioral expectations for student and staff behaviors (i.e., teaching matrix) defined and in place.
Staff handbook Student
handbook Walk through
reports
0 = No clearly stated behavioral expectations have been identified and posted
1 = Behavioral expectations identified but no matrix
2 = Five or fewer behavioral expectations exist that are positive, posted, and identified for specific settings
Feature Data Sources
Scoring Criteria
0 = Not implemented1 = Partially implemented2 = Fully implemented
Subscale and Items Action Who When Next Update1. Commitment and
Leadership
1. Systems Alignment
1. Action Planning
1. Performance Feedback
1. Selection
1. Training
1. Coaching
1. Decision Support System
1. Facilitative Administration
1. Systems Intervention
Next Steps• State
o Use SCA to define state capacityo Invest in state leadership teamo Build scaling plan with both “bottom up” and “top down” strategies
• Fuchs et al., 2014
• Districto Use DCA to define district capacityo Use District Self-Assessment for targeted content areas.o Invest in Leadership Teamo Build capacity to Train, Coach, Evaluate, Sustaino Collect school “fidelity” data regularly (TFI)o Collect student outcome data regularly
• Tier I ODR• Tier II CICO points• Tier III % students “Progressing” ISIS