Impact of PBIS for Students with Disabilities: Systems, Data, and Practices

Transcription

1 Impact of PBIS for Students with Disabilities: Systems, Data, and Practices Jessica Swain-Bradway, IL PBIS Network Nanci Johnson, University of Missouri, Dept. of Special Education

2 Agenda Introductions Vulnerable Populations The Changing Landscape Evaluation Questions PBIS Framework Increasing Access PBIS Impact on vulnerable populations Question and answer time

3 Objectives Describe typical educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Describe the impact PBIS can have on outcomes for students with disabilities. Describe patterns of student outcomes from schools and districts implementing Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports with fidelity.

4 Engagement Time!

5

6 Questions to consider Where are we in our implementation? What do I hope to learn? What did I learn? What will I do with what I learned?

7 Putting outcomes for students with IEP s into the context of schools as systems to educate and support ALL students.

8 SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTIONS and SUPPORT Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings 5% 15% Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior 80% of Students

9 Vulnerable Populations Bottom line: schools are only as successful as their LEAST successful students PBIS is a framework for evidence based practices for ALL students Special education = resource heavy Who are your most vulnerable students?

10 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), and Diagnosed with a disability (NTLS-2, ; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, Garza, 2006).

11 What do we know about school discipline referrals and special education students? Students with disabilities tend to be overrepresented in school discipline (Cooley, 1995; Fabelo et al., 2011; Krezmien, Leone, & Achilles, 2006; Rausch & Skiba, 2006; SRI International, 2006; Zhang, Katsiyannis, & Herbst, 2004). Impacts academic outcomes Time spent engaged in learning activities Time spent building positive relationships with adults Time exposed to a pro-social peer group

12 Educational Outcomes for Youth with Emotional & Behavioral Disabilities 40%-60% drop out of high school (Wagner, 1991; Wehman, 1996; Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein, 2005) Experience worse academic performance than students with LD (Lane, Carter, Pierson & Glaeser, 2006) 10%-25% enroll in post-secondary education (compared to 53% of typical population) (Bullis & Cheney, 1999) High rates of unemployment/underemployment post-school (Bullis& Cheney, 1999; Kortering, Hess & Braziel, 1996; Wagner, 1991; Wehman, 1996) High rates of MH challenges, poverty, incarceration (Alexander, et al., 1997; Kortering, et. al., 1998; Lee and Burkham, 1992; Wagner, 1992) African American youth area over-represented in the EBD disability category (Skiba, 2007)

13 Youth with EBD. Disengaged from school/family/ community Most likely disability group to be in a segregated academic setting Highest rates of disciplinary infractions Perceived by teachers as having significantly lower levels of social competence and school adjustment (Lane, Carter, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006)

14 Our Charge Supporting Vulnerable populations requires a school-wide effort Universal foundations forward Maximize resources Prevention focused

15 The Changing Landscape

16 Things change in education Changes in federal and state funding have a big impact on current systems Never a more critical time to be able to deliver evidence based practices with fidelity Do the best we can with what we have and think about capacity: Short term Long term

17 Could PBIS help? With Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS, Horner et al., 2009; Sailor, Dunlap, Sugai, & Horner, 2009; Sugai & Horner, 2010), many schools have been able to reduce rates of discipline referrals for the school as a whole (Bradshaw, Debnam, Koth, & Leaf, 2009; Simenson et al., 2012).

18 National SWIS Data to

19 Elementary Schools Mean and Median Major ODR per 100 students per day to Elementary Schools Mean Median N =

20 Middle Schools Mean and Median ODR per 100 students per day to Middle Schools 1.2 Mean Median N =

21 High Schools Mean and Median ODR per 100 students per day to High Schools 1.2 Mean Median N =

22 Evaluation Questions How do you know things are working? Where is the impact?

23 How do we know it s working? What is our Capacity? Access Fidelity Is it making a difference in school outcomes? (ABCs) Within grade cohorts/ school: Attendance Behavior Completion of work District and School Trends: Educational Placement data for SPED Retention Rates Graduation rates

24 Capacity Access: What is our anticipated need? How are we identifying? Are we on track to match anticipated need? What percentage of students are receiving supports? Fidelity: Who is providing those supports? Are they implementing with fidelity? Do they have what they need? What proportion of students in your school need additional supports? T2? T3?

25 ABCs Is it making a difference in school outcomes? (ABCs) Attendance Behavior Completion of work Do your current screening methods allow you to find students BEFORE they fail? Research in elementary, middle and high school point to the ABCs as pivotal for success.

26 ABCs Aggregated data Trends Outliers Changes Disaggregated data By IEP v No-IEP By Disability category By ethnicity and disability By gender and disability By grade and disability

27 PBIS Framework Increasing Access to Evidence Based Practices Capacity

28 Who is accessing interventions? Any student who demonstrates need Think RtI With and without IEP Sub populations

29 Illinois Access Example Tier 1: 1,655 schools (2012) 1,819 (2013) High schools: 156 (2011) to 201 (2013) Tier 2: Schools using CICO-SWIS Schools 91 schools (2009) 453 schools (2013) Students All: 4.6% (2010) 10.45% (2012) With IEPS: 7.27% (2010) 18.79% (2013) District School By Grade By Ethnicity By IEP Can focus on school type: Where will we target our resources?

30 Illinois Access Example How has thinking about capacity guided systems? More students identified = more faculty / staff providing supports Rethinking interventionist role in the school Teachers as CICO coordinators for smaller # of students Maximizing teaching assistants Extending training in CICO to MANY staff versus a small group Embedding CICO components into the classroom Tier 2 as part of normal classroom operations.

31 Illinois Access Example Tier 3: RENEW and Wraparound RENEW 2013: 17 schools, 65 students (increase of 2 from 2012) 33 With IEPs 32 without IEPs Wraparound schools, 75 students 34 with IEPs 41 without District School By Grade By Ethnicity By IEP How does this impact decision-making?

32 Fidelity Part of the decision-making for Capacity building Fidelity of CICO, RENEW and Wraparound Planning how to provide access to effective supports

33 Fidelity Capacity ISN T providing poorly implemented / wrong supports to the correct number of students Capacity IS providing the appropriate supports, as intended, to the students who require those supports. Fidelity checklists

34 PBIS Impact on vulnerable populations National, State-wide

35 NATIONAL Impact The School Wide Information System (SWIS, May et al., 2006; see SWIS data for 3 years: , , and At least a 10% decrease in rate of major ODRs from the first to the last year At least 5% of the students in their SWIS data had an IEP Not an alternative or juvenile justice school Entered their enrollment and number of school days

36 Number of students All Students with ODRs for All Schools (N = 85 schools) 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 22,399 20,890 18,709 Year Year Year

37 Number of students Students with IEPs with ODRs (N = 85 schools) 4,000 3,900 3,800 3,700 3,600 3,500 3,400 3,300 3,200 3,940 3,547 3,492 Year Year Year

38 Big DEAL!! Schools implementing the PBIS framework reduced their rates of major ODRs for the school as a whole, the number of students with IEPs

39 STATE: Illinois and Missouri Examples Office Referrals, Attendance, Placement and Academics

40 Percentage of Students Average % of Students With and Without ODRs (N=361 Illinois schools) 100% 35% 34% 75% 50% 25% 0% 65% 66% General Ed Special Ed Without ODRs With ODRS

41

42

43

44

45 Tier 1 Impact: State Reduction in Office discipline referrals (ODRs) and Out of School Suspensions (OSS) Elementary schools: ODRs per 100 students per day With IEPs: decrease of 3.6%.195 to.188 Without IEPs: decrease of 22.3%.264 to.205 OSS per 100 students per day With IEPs: decrease of 41% 3.91 to 2.30 Without IEPS: decrease of 24% to 17.67

46 Tier 2 Impact: State Average % of students succeeding on CICO: Increased 12.3% ( ) 72.57% (2010) 81.47% (2013) Proportional success rates with and without IEPs

47 Tier 3 Impact: State RENEW: ( ) Office referrals: 47% reduction With IEPs: 52% reduction Without IEPs: 23% reduction Placement Risk*: 11% reduction (school) and 20% (community) With IEPs: 23% reduction in school risk Without IEPs: 8% reduction in school risk * change to a more restrictive placement (self-contained, off campus, alternative, juvenile justice, residential facility, etc.)

48 Questions / Discussion Time General Questions and Let s think back

49 Things to consider about the decision-making process Aggregated: Systems Broad fidelity Disaggregated: Target populations General education Special education Tier 2 and Tier 3 Ethnicity Gender What else?

50 Things to consider about the decision-making process Risk factors? What can you influence within the school setting? Do you have access to those data? Are you targeting what you can actually influence? What can you NOT influence in the school setting? Are you complaining about what can you cannot?

51 Things to consider about the decision-making process Where are your gaps in this process? Access? Capacity to do analysis? Targeting resources? Other? Solutions oriented Team Implemented Problem Solving

52 Team Implemented Problem Solving (TIPS) Model: Improving Decision-Making From PROBLEM PROBLEM SOLVING TO SOLUTION TIPS II Training Manual (2013) 53

53 Resources: A3: Team Initiated Problem Solving (download from conference site) Poster #6: Increasing Meeting Efficiency with Use of the Team-Initiated Problem Solving Model (TIPS) at the Universal Level Google TIPS

54 Thinking back Where are we in our implementation? What do I hope to learn? Did we provide relevant information? What did I learn? Examples? What will I do with what I learned? Share how this is applicable in the short and long term.

55 Thank you! We appreciate your time and attention. Nanci Johnson, Jessica Swain-Bradway