RTI/PBIS & Support Planning: Working Together to Support - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
RTI/PBIS & Support Planning: Working Together to Support Secondary and Alternative Schools Across Christine Downs, M.Ed. PBIS Coordinator the Tiers May Institute, Inc. cdowns@mayinstitute.org Acknowledgments Jessica
Working Together to Support Secondary and Alternative Schools Across the Tiers
Christine Downs, M.Ed. PBIS Coordinator May Institute, Inc. cdowns@mayinstitute.org
Jessica Swain-Bradway, Ph.D.
Midwest PBIS Center
Institute on Community Integration
University of Minnesota
Kimberli Breen
Illinois ISTAC
Polly Neumann-Anderson
Wrap Facilitator Madison, WI
Pat Wolfe, Ed.D.
Mind Matters, Inc
What level do you work with?
High Schools Middle Schools Alternative Schools
Who has been trained in PBIS? Who has been trained in RTI?
disengaged
authority
empathy
checked out
Prefrontal Cortex- You’ve got one and you
use it!
Responsibility, organization, prioritization center Not fully developed until about age 25
Amygdala- Kicking it Teen Style!
Between 12-25 years old (approximate) brain is
undergoing massive restructuring
Infant / Toddler: massive “fixing” of neurological
pathways
Adolescence: realignment of pathways, white matter
development (myelination), amygdala over compensating.
Prefrontal Cortex
Organization of multiple tasks Impulse inhibition Self control Setting goals and priorities Empathizing with others Initiating appropriate
behavior
Making sound judgments Forming Strategies Planning ahead Adjusting behavior when
situation changes
Stopping an activity upon
completion
Insight
Amygdala
Emotional responses Response to/need for
pleasure/reward (heightened in adolescents)
Response to fear Motivation Impulsive thinking (risk
taking/reactionary)
Don’t overload with complicated directions or
multitasking
The addition of emotion can help students
remember
The brain is social and requires interaction to
develop properly
Practice/rehearsal is critical to learning and
retention
Teens taken in more information visually than
any other sense.
Most empirically robust predictor of drop out is
academic failure (Allensworth & Easton, 2005; Berktold,
Geis, & Kaufman, 1998; Harlow, 2003; Jordan McPartland, & Lara, 1999; Kemple, Herlihy & Smith, 2005; Markow & Scheer, 2002).
Students who drop out are NOT connected to
school (Berktold, Geis, & Kaufman, 1998; Harlow, 2003 : Jerald,
2006; Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison, 2006).
24% of students who drop out are unable to identify
an adult in the school by whom they feel supported
(2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement).
Academic failure
(Allensworth & Easton, 2005; Balfanz, & Herzog, 2005),
Problem behavior (e.g. disruption, disrespect, etc.)
(Sweeten, 2006; Tobin & Sugai, 1999
Poor teacher relationships (Barber
& Olson, 1997)
History of grade retention (Allensworth
et al, 2005),
Low attendance
(Balfanz, & Herzog, 2005; Jerald, 2006; Neild & Balfanz, 2006)
Diagnosed with a disability (NTLS-2, ;
Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, Garza, 2006).
$10,000 less in average yearly income for
students who drop out of school (HHS, 2006).
Each student who drops out costs the federal
government $260,000 over course of lifetime (Rouse, 2005).
A 5% increase in graduation rates of male
students alone would equate to savings of $8 billion in crime related costs (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006).
Inconsistent Environment (expectations/
block schedules)
Lots of multitasking Classes very didactic / passive Lots of independent work Support withheld until problems are
serious
ABCs
Attendance Behavior Completion of Work
Multi-pronged approach beginning with
universal climate of support
Target vulnerable groups Intensity match
High Expectations + High Supports
Frequent, positive adult interactions (Christenson,
Lehr, & Anderson, 2003)
Home school connection (Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr,
& Anderson, 2003)
Predictable, structured day /activities (Lee and
Burkham, 2003)
Social and Academic supports (Kemple, Herlihy, &
Smith, 2005).
Fewer “basic” level classes More advanced classes, with adequate support
(Jerald, 2006)
504/IEP
Grade Level
FBA/BIP
Student Support Team Behaviora l Support Academic Support Individual Support
Workgroup/ Committee/ Team Outcome/ Link to SIP Who do we serve? Names of Staff Non- negotiable District Mandate? How do we measure impact? Overlap? Modify?
Attendance Committee Improve school attendance students Junebug, Leo, Tom yes Attendance records Yes-fold to SW PBS SW PBS Team Teach expectations provide support Students staff Ben, Tom, Lou no ODR, Attend, MIR,Nursing log ,climate Yes- continue Safety Committee Improve school safety Students staff Toni, Barb,Tom no Office Referrals BIG 5, climate Yes-fold into SW PBS School Spirit Committee Encourage school community students Tom no No Yes-fold into SW PBS Discipline Committee Improve discipline students Tom, Lou no Office Referrals Yes-fold into SW pbs Student Support Team/Problem Solving Team Support students not responding students Steve, Sue,Jon, Tom yes Discipline, DIBELS, FACTS… No- continue School Improvement Improve our school academic &behaviorally 1,2,3 Bill, Jon, Lou, Tom yes All of the above Yes- continue
Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions 1-5%
1-5% Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions
Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5-15%
5-15% Tier 2/Secondary Interventions
Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90%
80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions
School-Wide Systems for Student Success: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/schoolwide.htm
IMPLEMENTATION W/ FIDELITY
CONTINUUM OF EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS PREVENTION & EARLY INTERVENTION CONTINUOUS PROGRESS MONITORING DATA-BASED DECISION MAKING & PROBLEM SOLVING
UNIVERSAL SCREENING
¡
Early Warning Indicators ¡
Course Performance in ¡ Core Subjects ¡ ¡ GPA ¡ Credits ¡ State Tests ¡ Attendance ¡ Office Discipline Referrals ¡ ¡ Additional ¡ Factors ¡
On-Track Indicators ¡
¡ On-Track ¡ Meeting all graduation requirements ¡ Cs or better in all areas ¡ 2.5 or more ¡ Meeting credit graduation requirement for grad plan year ¡ Level 3 or above or concordant scores within the same school year ¡ 4% or less absences per quarter or semester ¡ 3 or less Level I and/or minor referrals ¡ Disengagement ¡ No extra curricular involvement ¡ Substance Abuse ¡ High Mobility ¡ Mental health issues ¡ Free/Reduced lunch ¡ Foster/group home ¡ Transient/Homeless ¡ Parent unemployment Student employment ¡ Changes in behavior/ appearance ¡ More recent traumatic event ¡ Missed guidance appointments ¡ No show for yearbook picture ¡ At-Risk for ¡ Off Track ¡ Lacking 1 graduation requirement ¡ 2.0 to 2.49 ¡ Behind ¡ 1 Credits ¡ Level 2 on State Tests ¡ 5% or more absences per quarter or semester ¡ 4 or less Level I and/or minor referrals ¡ Level II ODRs per semester ¡ ¡ Off-Track ¡ Lacking 2 graduation requirements ¡ Failing 1-3 classes ¡ Less than 2.0 ¡ Behind 3 credits ¡ Not passed both sections of 10th grade State Tests ¡
No concordant scores ¡ 10% absences per quarter or semester ¡ 5 or more Level I and/or Level II ODRs per semester ¡ ¡ Highly Off- Track ¡ Lacking 2 or more graduation requirements ¡ Currently failing 3
Less than or equal to 1.5 ¡ Behind 4 or more credits ¡ Not passed 10th grade State Tests ¡
No concordant scores ¡ 15% or more absences per quarter or semester ¡ 5 or more Level II ODRs for fighting/ profanity/ disruption per semester ¡ ¡ Extremely ¡ Off-Track ¡ Meeting no graduation requirements ¡ 2-3 Years Behind ¡ Less than or equal to 1.0 ¡ Not meeting cohort graduation plan ¡ Not passed 10th grade State Tests ¡or retakes ¡ No concordant scores ¡ 20% or more absences per quarter or semester ¡ Established pattern of severe behavior ¡ Level II & III ODRs ¡
Debate Soc Studies Reading Math Peer Soc skills Basketball Spanish Adult soc skills
Consistent discipline Reinforcement Time for support team to meet Celebrations Family engagement Pleasant environment Consistent adult expectations Tier 2 support
Budget for support
Integrated Continuum of Support for the System
11th Grade Male Student Failing 3 Classes High Rate of Class Skipping High Teacher Frustration
Teachers feel that his low reading level and
failure is his own fault for not attending
After about 30 minutes of discussing how
to get him to class…a Key Question was asked.
Q: How many other students are skipping
class during any given period?
A: 30-40 students each period!
Q : I s t h i s a S t u d e n t I s s u e
a s y s t e m s I s s u e ? ? ?
Tier 3
§ Adult ¡Mentor ¡
§ Academic ¡tes1ng ¡and ¡support ¡if ¡needed ¡ § Credit ¡recovery ¡ § Error ¡analysis ¡for ¡individualized ¡instruc1onal ¡ support ¡
Seminar) ¡
hall ¡and ¡lunch ¡room ¡
to ¡class ¡
week) ¡
Students may receive support from multiple
interventions and interventions layer on top of
SAIGs utilize the systems and data already
established from CICO. The support becomes more individualized and starts to use more in depth data to support youth.
FBA/BIPs utilize the systems and data already
established from CICO and SAIGs. The support becomes even MORE individualized, and more in depth data is gathered to support youth.
Primary ¡Preven1on: ¡ School-‑/Classroom-‑ ¡ Wide ¡Systems ¡for ¡ All ¡Students, ¡ Staff, ¡& ¡SeQngs ¡
~80% ¡of ¡Students ¡ ~15% ¡ ¡ ~5% ¡ ¡
Secondary ¡Preven1on: ¡ Specialized ¡Group ¡ Systems ¡for ¡Students ¡ with ¡At-‑Risk ¡Behavior ¡ Ter1ary ¡Preven1on: ¡ Specialized ¡ ¡ Individualized ¡ Systems ¡for ¡ Students ¡with ¡High-‑ Risk ¡Behavior ¡
How ¡the ¡systems ¡of ¡ support ¡can ¡look ¡as ¡ layering ¡takes ¡place ¡
9th Grade Male Student Sent out of class frequently for being
insubordinate and disrespectful (high rate
Often argues with peers/angry Often absent and seems disconnected
from school
At risk of failure in several classes
Tier 3
§ Adult ¡Mentor ¡
§ Individual ¡support ¡from ¡SW ¡
extracurricular ¡ac1vity ¡
know ¡each ¡other ¡ac1vi1es ¡with ¡ students ¡and ¡staff ¡
disagree ¡respecZully” ¡
demonstra1ng ¡new ¡skill ¡
Tier 1 – Universal – All Students 80-90% of Students School Wide Systems of Support Tier3 3-5%
High Risk Students Individual Supports
Tier 2 7-10% of Students At Risk Students Classroom and Group Interventions
Inventory of Support Options Across all 3 Tiers
Tier 1 – Universal – All Students 80-90% of Students School Wide Systems of Support Tier3 3-5%
High Risk Students Individual Supports
Tier 2 7-10% of Students At Risk Students Classroom and Group Interventions
Use data at all 3 tiers for screening and progress monitoring
Take brain development into account Consolidate your teams Combine academic and behavioral
teams to offer support across both
Screen for at risk and high risk students Support/educate staff Create interventions across all 3 tiers to
support current and future students
Progress monitor interventions for efficacy