Response to Intervention: What’s Behavior Got to Do with It?

1. Response to Intervention: What’s Behavior Got to Do with It? George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education & Research University of Connecticut May 25 2011 www.pbis.orgwww.scalingup.orgwww.cber.org

2. PURPOSE Describe features, practices, research, & examples related to RtI, PBIS, & pre-/in-service professional development

3. “BIG PICTURE”

4. “Notes to Self”

5. Foundations of Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

6. Special Education & BD

7. “Abbreviated” SWPBS History

8. SWPBS Foundations

9. “Big Ideas” from Early Years

10. “Early Triangle”(p. 201)Walker, Knitzer, Reid, et al., CDC

11. Redesign of teaching environments…not students

12. Guskey, 1986, p. 59

13. SWPBS Logic! Successful individual student behavior support is linked to host environments or school climates that are effective, efficient, relevant, durable, salable, & logical for all students (Zins & Ponti, 1990)

14. Host Environment Features

15. Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence (2001) • Coordinated Social Emotional & Learning (Greenberg et al., 2003) • Center for Study & Prevention of Violence (2006) • White House Conference on School Violence (2006) PREVENTION SCIENCE LITERATURE

16. SWPBS (aka PBIS/RtI) is Framework

17. Integrated Elements Supporting Social Competence & Academic Achievement OUTCOMES 15 Supporting Decision Making Supporting Staff Behavior DATA SYSTEMS PRACTICES Supporting Student Behavior

18. Response-to-Intervention & Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

22. RtI

25. Questions to Ponder

26. RtI Application Examples

27. Academic-Behavior Connection Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 13, 3-16. Burke, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., & Sugai, G. (2003). The efficacy of function-based interventions for students with learning disabilities who exhibit escape-maintained problem behavior: Preliminary results from a single case study. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26, 15-25. McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 146-154. McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., and Braun, D. H. (2008). Reading skills and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education, 42, 131-147. Nelson, J. R., Johnson, A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53-62. Wang, C., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Rethinking the relationship between reading and behavior in early elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 100-109.

28. “Viewed as outcomes, achievement and behavior are related; viewed as causes of each other, achievement and behavior are unrelated. In this context, teaching behavior as relentlessly as we teach reading or other academic content is the ultimate act of prevention, promise, and power underlying PBS and other preventive interventions in America’s schools.” Algozzine, Wang, & Violette (2011), p. 16.

29. Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • High Intensity • Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • Intense, durable procedures • Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Universal Interventions • All students • Preventive, proactive • Universal Interventions • All settings, all students • Preventive, proactive Responsiveness to Intervention Academic Systems Behavioral Systems 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% 80-90% 80-90% Circa 1996

30. 23 Behavior Continuum Academic Continuum RTI Integrated Continuum Mar 10 2010

31. Responsiveness to Intervention

32. Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT FEW ~5% Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior ~15% SOME Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings 23 ALL ~80% of Students

33. 23 Continuum of Support for ALL Few Some All Dec 7, 2007

34. Continuum of Support for ALL “Theora” Math Science Spanish Reading Soc skills Soc Studies Basketball Label behavior…not people Dec 7, 2007

35. ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS • TERTIARY PREVENTION • Function-based support • Wraparound • Person-centered planning • TERTIARY PREVENTION ~5% ~15% • SECONDARY PREVENTION • Check in/out • Targeted social skills instruction • Peer-based supports • Social skills club • SECONDARY PREVENTION • PRIMARY PREVENTION • Teach SW expectations • Proactive SW discipline • Positive reinforcement • Effective instruction • Parent engagement • PRIMARY PREVENTION ~80% of Students

36. Student Behavior Teacher Practice CONTEXT or SETTING Continua of Responsiveness & Support District Operations School Reform

38. MessageApply RtI Logic to School Improvement - Current Practice - • Large # priorities • Large # interventions • Large professional development plan • Large data collection plan + Rti Logic + • Screening for unresponsiveness • Small # priorities • Continuous progress monitoring • Continuous implementation fidelity • Increase priority teaching & learning time

39. Adopting an Implementation Framework

40. Problem Statement “We give schools strategies & systems for improving practice & outcomes, but implementation is not accurate, consistent, or durable, & desired outcomes aren’t realized. School personnel & teams need more thanexposure, practice, & enthusiasm.”

41. www.scalingup.org Dean Fixsen Karen Blase UNC

42. SWPBS Implementation Blueprint www.pbis.org

43. Team GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: “Getting Started” Agreements Data-based Action Plan Evaluation Implementation

44. Jul ‘09 Jan ‘10 Jul ‘10 Jan ’11 • 614 trained schools (149 districts) • 448 (73% of 614) implementing (SAS/TIC/BoQ) • 129 (28.8% of 448) implementing w/ fidelity (SAS/TIC/BoQ)

46. Jul ‘09 Jan ‘10 Jul ‘10 Jan ’11

47. Are outcomes measurable?

48. Where are you in implementation process?Adapted from Fixsen & Blase, 2005

49. SWPBS Implementation “Infidelity”