The Process of Change: Resolving Barriers to Universal Intervention Implementation

1. The Process of Change: Resolving Barriers to Universal Intervention Implementation Sharon Lohrmann Stacy Martin Sonia Patil

2. Visit www.njpbs.org for handouts. Click on Upcoming Events and Scroll to the APBS listing

3. Buy-In: (n.) Commitment to achieving a shared goal Successful change begins with acquiring employees’ buy-in to the change process …(MSN Encarta) But, what does buy-in really mean?

4. Buy-in and commitment to change is a dynamic process Conclusions drawn from sustainability research: • Knowing that a practice results in good outcomes is insufficient for implementation (Gersten, Chard, & Baker 2000). • Teachers’ beliefs, feelings of self-efficacy, attitudes, and perceptions affect the extent to which teachers try new strategies and persist using them when confronted with challenges (Klinger, Ahwee, Pilonieta, Merendez, 2003). • Sustained use of innovative, research based practices seem directly related to practices that teachers view as being helpful in working with difficult-to- teach students (Gersten et al., 2000). • Teachers can benefit from on-going sources of support that helps them to think deeply about their practice (Vaughn, Klinger, & Hughes 2000).

5. Motivation for this Line of Research Schools in NJ are targeted based on need for corrective action Schools struggle with the weight of pressures to “fix the problem” We want to understand what we can do to prevent as much of the resistance upfront as opposed to trying to reframing it in the middle

6. Part of a Line of Research on Attitude and Belief Barriers to PBS • Universal Intervention • Lohrmann, Martin, & Patil (2007* unpublished pilot) • Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, & Palmieri (2008) • Individual Student Planning • Lohrmann & Bambara (2006) • Bambara, Lohrmann, Nonnemacher, Goh, & Kern (in progress)

7. Purpose of the Study To understand, from the perspectives of external and internal coaches: • The types of barriers that interfere with the adoption of universal interventions • The factors that contribute to barrier conditions • The extent to which barriers are resolved • The factors/process that leads to resolution

8. Procedures: Sampling Process 1. Invitation and interview with state coordinator/director for PBS initiative • Background and Context information 2. Distribution of invitation through the state network for external coaches 3. External coach screened and identified a focus school 4. External coach interviewed 5. External coach nominates the internal coach/key school contact 6. Internal coach interviewed

9. Recruitment Challenges • We interviewed 11 state coordinators but recruitment efforts only produced pairs from 5 of those states • Difficulty recruiting participants • Limitations imposed by our Institutional Review Board • Not a lot of response from recruitment efforts – especially school personnel • Harder to find implementation at the middle level

10. Brief Overview of States

11. Brief Overview of States

12. Brief Overview of States

13. Procedures – Inclusion Criteria • Schools • Middle Level 5th-8th grade • Minimum SET/Benchmarks score of 70% • Implementing for 1-3 years post the first instructional event kick off • Considered by external coach to have been a school that struggled initially but ultimately achieved success

14. School Summary 1 - 5-6 school 7 - 6-8 schools 1 - 7-8 school Average SET Score: 89% (r=80%-99%) Mostly rural schools

15. Schools

16. Schools

17. Schools

18. Procedures – Inclusion Criteria • External Coaches • At least 2 years experience providing direct on-site assistance to schools to implement the universal level of the SWPBS prevention model; • Has on-site contact with schools and the school’s universal intervention team – at least 4 visits in a year; and • Worked with at least 3 schools implementing the SWPBS model

19. 18 Participants (9 pairs) Across 5 States 9 External Coaches • Mean 16.5 years (r=8-29) experience in education • Mean 5 years (r=2-8) experience with the focus team/school • Average 28 (r=4-60) schools supported to implement UI • 2 external coaches worked for the district • 7 external coaches worked for a state initiative either directly or through a university contract • 8 with masters; 1 with a PhD • 8 learned SWPBS through inservice with the state team; 1 learned through inservice from the OSEP center; 1 had coursework

20. Procedures – Inclusion Criteria • Internal Coaches • Designated as a coach or chair of a middle school level universal intervention team; • A member of the team since the first training the school received on universal interventions; and • Employed full time by the school in which they serve as the team chair.

21. 18 Participants (9 pairs) Across 5 States 9 Internal Coaches* • Mean 15.5 years (r= 8-26) experience in education • Mean 4.5 years (r= 3-6) experience with the team/school • 8 were building based • 1 had cross building responsibilities • 1 Bachelors; 4 with Masters; 1 Ed.S • All learned SWPBS through inservice with the state team; in addition, some had exposure through conferences or training through the OSEP center **3 internal coaches did not return the demographic form (yet)

22. Interview Procedures Interviews • Semi-structured, open-ended • Generally 90 minutes • Audio taped and transcribed • Interview guide with three core sections • Context: description of school, start up activities, team, strengths/needs of the school prior to implementation, implementation description • Types of implementation support provided/received • Barriers • Description of the barrier • Impact on implementation • Contributing factors • Resolution • Explanation of resolution • Strategies

23. Data Analysis Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997) • Research Team • Rotating Roles (interviewers, primary coders, auditors) • Multiple Stages of Data Analysis (audited, consensual agreement) Stage 1: Domain Code Development Stage 2: Domaining (Coding) Stage 3: Abstracting Stage 4: Cross Analysis and Recoding Stage 5: Final Thematic Analysis

24. Findings

25. Types of Barriers Problematic Across all participants, the number one problem encountered was the lack of consistency in implementation

26. Types of Barriers Problematic • Each school had it’s own story for how it arrived at inconsistent implementation and how implementation issues were resolved. • What was common across schools was that “the problem” and “the resolution” were some combination of: • Degree of administrative support • Degree of staff “cognitive” readiness for PBS • The general stability of and satisfaction with the school context

27. Types of Barriers ProblematicAttitude and Belief Issues • Knee jerk reaction to teaching and reinforcing social behaviors: • “kids should know what to do” • “this won’t work” • “focus on punitive consequences” • Perception of usefulness for the school: • “we don’t need this” • “it’s a special education thing” • “what we are doing is fine” • “just another initiative that will go away” • “it’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of”

28. Types of Barriers ProblematicAttitude and Belief Issues

29. Types of Barriers ProblematicAttitude and Belief Issues

30. Types of Barriers ProblematicAdministrative Support Issues • Described as: inconsistent, unhelpful, obstructive, conflictual, or passivity • Examples of the implication of administrative support were: • The team not having the resource they need • The team not getting the green light to implement • Staff receiving mixed messages • Planning efforts stalling • Negative or “opting out” staff were reinforced

31. Contributing Factors

32. Contributing Factors(Setting Events?) • Contributing factors were historic or current contextual events that set a tone or atmosphere that was inhospitable for cultivating staff buy in to PBS. • Interview Question: In the larger context of the school/district/community, what factors, if any, do you think contributed to difficulties you experienced with staff buy in to PBS?

33. Factors Described as Contributing to Attitude and Belief Issues

34. Administrative Support IssuesThe Chicken, The Egg or Both? • In 6 schools – the administrator was a key barrier and contributing factor • Inconsistent administrative support was a barrier for the team AND set the stage for staff to resist implementation: • “If my principal isn’t pushing this, why should I do/believe in it?” • No clear message • No accountability • No visible administrator effort

35. Resolving Barriers

36. Resolving Barriers • Slow Process of Change • Participants reported multi year efforts (3 or more) to transform attitude conditions • Catalyst Events • In the case of administrative support, typically this issue was only resolved once there was a change in administrators • Changes in administrator often resulted in a within a year turn around in staff attitudes

37. How Barriers Were Resolved Strategies Used Contextual Changes

38. How Barriers Were Resolved Contextual Changes Staff turnover Changes in administrative support/participation Change in Administrator Disconnecting PBS from special education

39. How Barriers Were ResolvedStrategies Used • Involve staff in decision making • Surveys, discussions, proposal comments • Keep staff informed about PBS/ Keep PBS on the radar screen • Updates at staff meetings, emails, memos • Pay attention to staff morale • Celebration events • Rewards for staff • Unity building activities

40. How Barriers Were ResolvedStrategies Used • Train and coach the team • Retraining, action plan development, have team attend conferences • Have the administrator take a stand • “PBS is a must do” “PBS is right for our building” • Holding staff accounting • Encouraging more administrative participation in planning meetings

41. How Barriers Were ResolvedStrategies Used • Share data and showcase successes • Graphs, testimonials, examples • Provide training to educate on PBS and clarify misconceptions • New staff orientation, small and large group in-services, individual coaching, model implementation • Hold discussions to share ideas, problem solve, talk through issues • Informal small group forums

42. How Barriers Were ResolvedStrategies Used • Demonstrate how PBS can help with high need students • Use phrasing and terminology that staff can relate to and feel comfortable with • “It will make your job easier” • “You’ve already been doing this” • “It won’t require a lot of work/effort” • “It will help the kids”

43. How Barriers Were ResolvedStrategies Used • Meeting with the administrator • External coach met with administrator • Internal coach or other key team member met with administrator • Involve the principal in special ways • E.g., special principal ticket

44. How Barriers Were ResolvedResiliency Factors? District level support Credible team who didn’t give up – dedicated people who kept PBS alive long enough for other changes to happen Desire among staff to do the right thing for children

45. Take Away Messages • In general external and internal coaches were on the same page about big picture issues (e.g., staff buy in) but were not always consistent in their explanation of the specific nature of the issues (e.g., reason for lack of buy in) • Pay attention to and do something about the larger context or atmosphere issues of the school (e.g., staff morale)

46. Take Away Messages • Participants discussed many strategies for changing staff attitudes but felt limited when the problem was the administrator • Transforming barriers is often a slow process that requires multi-year efforts and combinations of persistently applied strategies • Work to secure district level support and make that support visible

47. Take Away Messages 6. Much of what was done focused on improving the impact of PBS at school (making implementation better) so that staff would have the experience of seeing students improve • According to participants once staff began to REALIZE that PBS was having a positive effect with the students, increased cooperation and participation were observed

48. Visit www.njpbs.org for handouts. Click on Upcoming Events and Scroll to the APBS listing