IL PBIS NetworkTier 2/3 Training Process National PBIS Leadership Forum Session A1 – 10am Building Trainer Competency for Secondary/Tertiary Systems Lucille EberEd.D Statewide Director, IL PBIS Network www.pbisillinois.org October 27, 2011
Context for Building Trainer Competencies 1. Systems • Continuum of Courses, Skill Sets, Competencies • ToT, Technical Assistance, Coaching 2. Data • System Tools: Tracking, Systems Response, BAT, ISSET,WIT • Outcome Data: SWIS/CICO, SIMEO, LRE • ‘Teaching/Learning’ Examples 3. Practices • Discovery Learning • Diversified Instruction • Facilitate activity-based training • 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)
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
Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ~5% Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior ~15% Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Application for Behavior Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc. Tier 2/Secondary Tier 3/ Tertiary Check-in/ Check-out Intervention Assessment Social/Academic Instructional Groups Daily Progress Report (DPR)(Behavior and Academic Goals) Individualized Check-In/Check-Out, Groups & Mentoring (ex. CnC) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc. Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/ Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP) Complex FBA/BIP SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T Wraparound
Necessary Teaming Functions in a 3-Tiered System of Support UniversalTeam Secondary Systems Team Problem Solving Team Tertiary Systems Team Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Plans SW & Class-wide supports Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time CICO Universal Support Brief FBA/BIP SAIG Complex FBA/BIP WRAP Group w. individual feature Brief FBA/BIP Sept. 1, 2009
Necessary Teaming Functions and Evaluation Tools in a 3-Tiered System of Support UniversalTeam Secondary Systems Team Problem Solving Team Tertiary Systems Team Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Uses Process data; determines overall intervention effectiveness Plans SW & Class-wide supports Standing team; uses FBA/BIP process for one youth at a time BAT ISSET BOQ Universal Screening Decision Rules for Access SWIS Behavior Pathway FACTS ISIS BAT ISSET ISIS SRT Home/School/Community Ed Info Tool WIT SIMEO Tracking Tool Reverse RFA SRT CICO SWIS/ ISIS Sept. 1, 2009
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 1 You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked? What does the Secondary Systems Team and process look like? What does the Secondary Systems Team do at their meetings? Follow up Questions? When does this team actually talk about interventions for individual kids? 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? 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 TeamMeeting 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 Response 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Responding to Wraparound PlansYouth 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: Are we supposed to have a Tertiary Systems Planning Team meeting also? What is supposed to happen at this meeting? Who is supposed to be there when we do Tertiary Systems Planning? Follow up Questions: Is the individual team for the student different for complex fba/bip and wraparound? How is the individual team different than an IEP team? Aren’t those people on the Tertiary Systems Planning Team the same ones that would be on the individual child team? Other follow-up questions from team members?
Teaming at Tier 3 Tertiary Systems Planning ‘conversation’ Monitors effectiveness of Complex FBA/BIP & Wraparound plans 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”)
Scenario for Activity 3 You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked: 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: What exactly does setting event mean? The problem behavior and replacement behavior have to meet the same function. How can that happen? Can’t we just do a BIP with a plan for consequences? Other follow-up questions from team members?
Common Mistakes Seen in Behavior Intervention Plans • Becoming ‘immobilized’ by setting events beyond the control of the school, ex. student does not take medication at home, what is the setting event at school? What is something the school can identify and impact? • Skipping the replacement behavior : Must have a alternative or replacement behavior that student is taught, practiced, reinforced • Not enough teaching strategiesand opportunities • Putting all the “eggs in one ‘consequence’ basket”, ex. If you’re good all week, you can have a soda on Friday
Other Common Mistakes… • The problem behavior is not operationally defined: observable, countable, measurable: must be able to see, count, and measure behavior. Aggressive versus hits other peers during unstructured time on a daily basis • There is more than one function: non example, obtain peer attention and avoid doing work • There need to be at least one strategy in at least 3 areas (Antecedent, Behavior, and Consequence)
Common Mistakes on the BIP Need to make sure there is: • A strategy for preventing problem behavior • A strategy for minimizing reinforcement of problem behavior • A strategy for reinforcing the use of desired/alternative behavior
Scenario for Activity 4 You are at a coach’s network meeting and the following questions are asked? How do we know if were supposed to do complex fba/bip or wraparound? Follow up Questions? So what is the difference between big need and function? How do I go about assessing/determining what a student (and/or family)’s “ big needs” are?
Deciding Which Tertiary Level Interventionis 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 • 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. Old Approach New Approach
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 Tertiary Demos *CICO = Check in, Check Out
Students with IEPs Spending more than 80% of School Day in General Education Setting
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.