School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports BCSD Administrative Leadership Institute: Tier II Guidebook

Transcription

1 School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports BCSD Administrative Leadership Institute: Tier II Guidebook

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Guidebook adapted from materials at: With information and resources from: Michigan s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) Illinois PBIS Network Managing Onsite Discipline for Effective Learning Florida s Positive Behavior Support Project School- wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Tier 2: Intervention Toolbox Ventura County SELPA -

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements BCSD Values, Vision, and Mission School- wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Framework School- wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Tier II BCSD SWPBIS Flowchart for Tier II Support Step 1 Developing and Communicating Foundational Knowledge of Tier II Implementation Guidelines Resources Article: Tier II Interventions within the Framework of School- Wide Positive Behavior Support: Essential Features for Design, Implementation and Maintenance Anderson, C. and Borgmeier, C. Step 2 Establishing a Tier II Team: Membership and Roles Implementation Guidelines Resources Planning and Reflection Worksheet for Conducting SWPBIS Tier II Team Meetings Meeting Agenda, Minutes and Problem- Solving Action Plan Form Step 3 Identifying Potential Students for Tier II Supports Implementation Guidelines Resources Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) Sample Staff Request Form Step 4 Matching Student Behavior to, and Providing, Tier II Interventions Targeted Intervention Quick Sort Matrix Implementation Guidelines Tier II Interventions Check- In/Check- Out (CICO) i

4 Estimated Time For CICO Coordinator Tasks CICO Implementation Guidelines Social/ Organizational Skills Groups (SOSG) Stop, Think, Act Right (STAR) Framework SOSG Implementation Guidelines Check & Connect Mentoring Check & Connect Mentoring Implementation Guidelines Other Interventions Resources Alejandro s Story Tier II Student Record Review Step 5 Monitoring Progress of Students Receiving Tier II Interventions Metrics for Monitoring Fading Interventions Implementation Guidelines Resources Daily Progress Report Examples Step 6 Evaluating Tier II Systems Implementation Guidelines Resources Social Skills Group Fidelity Implementation Measure - Example Check- In/Check- Out Fidelity Implementation Measure Example National Fidelity Tools Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (I- SSET) Version 2.8 Appendix A Mental Health Disorder Fact Sheets for the Classroom Anxiety Disorders Asperger s Syndrome Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD)

5 Bipolar Disorder (Manic- Depressive Illness) Conduct Disorder Depression Eating Disorders Obsessive- Compulsive Disorder (OCD) Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) Pervasive Development Disorder (PDD) & Autism Spectrum Disorders Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) Schizophrenia Tourette s Disorder (Tourette Syndrome) Other Health Impairment Appendix B Strategies to Address Behaviors by Function Attendance Biting Difficulty Organizing and Caring for Materials Dishonesty Drops to Ground Inappropriate Social Interactions with Peers and/or Adults Inappropriate Personal Touching Minor Fine Motor Annoyances Non- Compliance to Teacher and Other Adults Requests Difficulty Focusing On/Completing Task Out of Seat Physical Aggression Resists Transitions Between Activities or Places Runs Away/Elopement Spitting Stealing Talking Out/Back/Inappropriate Comments

6 Throwing Objects Verbal Aggression Withdrawn

7 Page 1 Page 1

8 School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Framework School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) is a framework for enhancing adoption and implementation of a continuum of evidenced-based interventions to achieve academically and behaviorally important outcomes for all students. SWPBIS is defined by four inter-related elements: Outcomes refer to what we want students to learn and do well, both academically and behaviorally. They are derived from data, and guide decisions about what practices to select, and what systems might be needed to support achievement of those outcomes. Data refers to information about where we are now and have been, and what evidence we know about something. Data supports decision making in order to define where we want to go (outcomes), what we might use to get there (practices), and what we need to be effective and efficient at what we do (systems). Practices refer to what instructional and behavioral interventions, strategies, programs, curricula, etc. are used to achieve a stated outcome. In addition, the selection of a practice is guided by the evidence (data) that are available to demonstrate the effectiveness of a practice and the resources and supports needed for accurate and effective implementation (systems). Systems refer to supports, resources, training, etc. that implementers would need to maximize their implementation of a given practice to achieve a specific outcome. A defining feature of SWPBIS is a prevention logic and mindset that is organized as a continuum of support. The premise of the SWPBIS mindset is that continual teaching, combined with acknowledgement or feedback of clear, positive student behavior expectations will promote a climate of greater productivity, safety and learning. The BCSD model for SWPBIS consists of three tiers: Tier I Establishment of school-wide universal expectations, rewards, and consequences along with proactive systems and structures that teach, support, and reinforce universal expectations for all students in all locations. Tier II Prescriptive, targeted interventions of moderate frequency, intensity, and duration for identified behaviorally at-risk students. Tier III Prescriptive for students exhibiting chronic behaviors who are in need of intensive individualized instruction and support to facilitate acquisition of replacement behaviors and adaptive skills. Page 2

9 SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTEREVENTIONS AND SUPPORTS: TIER II In the following sections, steps for the implementation of SWPBIS for Tier II are described. Each step is designed to highlight key features of structures and practices needed to sustainably and effectively implement a Tier II support system for students. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE STEPS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No STEP 1 Developing and Communicating Foundational Knowledge of SWPBIS Tier II STEP 2 Establishing a Tier II Team: Membership and Roles STEP 3 Identifying Potential Students for Tier II Supports STEP 4 Matching Student Behavior To, and Providing, Tier II Interventions STEP 5 Monitoring Progress of Students Receiving Tier II Interventions STEP 6 Evaluating Tier II Systems Sections for each step include: Implementation guidelines (blue) for ensuring high quality completion of each step Sample resources (green) for completing each step In addition, the following page contains a decision making flowchart created to provide a visual support for understanding the process of identifying students atrisk, selecting an intervention for a student, progress monitoring, and considerations in the event a student does not respond to an intervention. Page 3

10 BCSD SWPBIS Flowchart for Tier II Support Tier I Teaching and Recognition of Universal Behavior Expectations NO YES Is Tier I in place? 80% on SET, 80% of student <2 ODRs Requests Administration/ Teacher/Parent/ Self ODRs >1 in a month, may be adjusted based on school needs Universal Screening SRSS (Fall and Winter) BIS Data Collection (ODRs, Cume Review, Teacher Information, function quick sort) Prepare information and recommendation for Tier II team meeting Tier II Team (BIS, Administrator, Psychologist & other) Ensure Tier I for student NO Is Tier I in place (classroom systems, active supervision, 4 to 1, etc...)? YES Tier II Team Recommends Targeted Function Based Intervention BIS obtains parent/guardian consent CICO SOSG Mentor Other Progress Monitoring for 6 8 Weeks (DPR, ODR, or other) NO Is there fidelity to implementation? NO YES Is student making acceptable progress toward goal? YES Fade Intervention Address Fidelity Continue Intervention NO Is behavior escalating or dangerous? YES YES Does positive behavior sustain during fade? NO Modify Intervention TSS Develop Individual Plan Exit Student Continue Intervention Tier III If student fails to respond consider revision of plan or recommendation for assessment Page 4 Key BIS Behavioral Intervention Specialist CICO Check In/Check Out DPR Daily Progress Report ODR Office Discipline Referral SOSG Social/Organizational Skills Group SET School wide Evaluation Tool SRSS Student Risk Screening Scale TSS Team for Student Success

11 STEP 1 DEVELOPING AND COMMUNICATING FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF TIER II The universal support of Tier I forms the base for the implementation of Tier II interventions. Without consistent implementation of Tier I, schools may over identify students in need of additional support. Tier II interventions are one component of a continuum of behavioral supports, and their features and systems reflect the structure of SWPBIS. A school is deemed to have fidelity of implementation with respect to Tier I if they have achieved a score at or above 80% on the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) and no more than 20% of the student body have received more than one office discipline referral (ODR). After consistent implementation of Tier I systems, research indicates about 10 15% of students may continue to exhibit behavior difficulties and need more intensive targeted interventions in addition to supports given within Tier I. Students in need of Tier II support may be at risk for developing chronic problem behavior but do not typically need the high intensity, individualized interventions of Tier III behavior plans. Tier II intervention systems are designed to prevent the development, or decrease the frequency and/or intensity, of student s problem behavior. These intervention systems are standardized in order that they effectively and efficiently support students while not requiring the time and resources needed to develop individualized plans. As such, standardized implementation requires a foundational understanding of SWPBIS. All staff providing and supporting Tier II intervention should be provided a basic understanding of essential features for design, implementation, and maintenance of Tier II interventions within a SWPBIS framework. Essential to the implementation of any new system or practice is establishing staff buy-in through consensus or fair process. Administration should engage all staff by providing: (a) opportunities for feedback; (b) clear explanations of Tier II systems and practices; and (c) clear expectations of their role in supporting Tier II implementation. Additionally, parents and school community stakeholders should receive information regarding Tier II intervention systems through school publications (e.g., handbooks, newsletters, school site council minutes). Page 5

12 When developing foundational knowledge for Tier II implementation, consider the following guidelines: Implementation Guidelines Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. Ensure a score at or above 80% on the SET 2. Ensure no more than 20% of the student body have received more than one ODR 3. Provide staff with training and professional learning regarding Tier II intervention within the SWPBIS framework 4. Engage staff regarding the implementation of Tier II by providing: Opportunities to provide feedback Clear explanations of Tier II systems and practices Clear expectations of their role in supporting Tier II implementation 5. Communicate Tier II systems to stakeholders (e.g., families, community members) Resources Anderson, C. & Borgmeier, C. (2010). Tier II Interventions within the Framework of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: Essential Features for Design, Implementation, and Maintenance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3(1), Retrieved from: Resource for building foundational knowledge with staff regarding Tier II implementation within a SWPBIS framework. Page 6

13 Tier II Interventions within the Framework of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: Essential Features for Design, Implementation, and Maintenance Cynthia M. Anderson, Ph.D., University of Oregon Chris Borgmeier, Ph.D., Portland State University ABSTRACT To meet the complex social behavioral and academic needs of all students, schools benefit from having available multiple evidence-based interventions of varying intensity. School-wide positive behavior support provides a framework within which a continuum of evidence-based interventions can be implemented in a school. This framework includes three levels or tiers of intervention; Tier I (primary or universal), Tier II (secondary or targeted), and Tier III (tertiary or individualized) supports. In this paper we review the logic behind school-wide positive behavior support and then focus on Tier II interventions, as this level of support has received the least attention in the literature. We delineate the key features of Tier II interventions as implemented within school-wide positive behavior support, provide guidelines for matching Tier II interventions to school and student needs, and describe how schools plan for implementation and maintenance of selected interventions. Keywords: prevention, problem behavior in schools, school-wide positive behavior support, secondary interventions, Tier II interventions The range of behavioral and academic challenges exhibited by students in schools poses complex challenges requiring sophisticated, systemic solutions. Although a substantive body of literature has identified effective interventions for supporting students who engage in problem behaviors, successful and sustained implementation of these interventions in schools has been challenged by limited time, resources, and training (Adelman & Taylor, 2000; Noell & Gansle, 2009). School-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) offers a promising systems approach to these challenges via use of a three-tiered model of increasingly intensive interventions (see Figure 1) arranged to facilitate sustained and effective implementation. Within SWPBS, specific interventions are not dictated within tiers; instead, SWPBS is a framework to guide schools in the selection, implementation, and maintenance of evidence-based interventions. Tier I supports, implemented with the entire student population, are designed to prevent the development and exacerbation of problem behavior. These strategies draw from the large behavior analytic literature base documenting effective strategies for supporting prosocial behavior (Ayllon & Roberts, 1974; Becker, Madsen, & Arnold, 1967; Fishbein & Wasik, 1981; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968; Mayer, 1995; Murphy, Hutchison, & Bailey, 1983; Ringer, 1973). Schools implementing Tier I of SWPBS develop and explicitly teach behavioral expectations (e.g., be safe, be respectful) that are defined for various settings in the school. For example, be responsible might be defined as pick up after yourself in the cafeteria and be in your seat with your materials ready when the bell rings in the classroom. A reinforcement program such as a token economy is used to reinforce the occurrence of pro-social behavior, and schools define and use a continuum of logical consequences for inappropriate behavior. A growing body of research supports the utility of Tier I supports within the framework of SWPBS for decreasing discipline problems and enhancing pro-social behavior and academic success (Bohanon et al., 2006; Duda, Dunlap, Fox, Lentini, & Clarke, 2004; Leedy, Bates, & Safran, 2004; Lewis, Powers, Kelk, & Newcomer, 2002; Markey, Markey, Quant, Santelli, & Turnbull, 2002; Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, & Sprague, 2001; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997; Warren et al., 2003). Readers interested in learning more about Tier I of SWPBS are referred to which provides literature reviews and information on the implementation of SWPBS. Students who are not responsive to the Tier I supports may receive a Tier II intervention. These students continue to receive the Tier I intervention, but more structure and guidance is provided to assist them in meeting school-wide Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3(1), Page 7 TIER II INTERVENTIONS 33

14 Tier I Interventions School/ClassroomWide Systems for All Students, Staff & Settings Tier III Interventions Individualized, function-based interventions for students whose behavior has not responded to Tiers I and II supports Tier II Interventions Specialized group interventions for students whose behavior has not responded to Tier I supports Figure 1. A graphic representation of the intervention tiers of school-wide positive behavior support. A triangle is used to show that Tier I supports are in place for all students and successively fewer students will require additional, increasingly intensive levels of intervention. expectations. Students receiving Tier II supports typically exhibit behavior that is not dangerous to themselves or others, but that is disruptive to their learning or the learning of their peers. Tier II interventions are implemented similarly across groups of students who exhibit similar behavior problems and are therefore likely to benefit from the same type of intervention. For example, students who exhibit deficits in social competence (e.g., conflict resolution skills) might participate in a skills group in which all students in the group receive the same level and intensity of instruction, as well as similar feedback on their behavior. Although the application of the three-tiered framework to social behavior is somewhat new, there is a relatively large literature documenting effectiveness of treatments that could be considered Tier II interventions. Examples include check and connect (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004; Evelo, Sinclair, Hurley, Christenson, & Thurlow, 1996; Lehr, Sinclair, & Christenson, 2004), check-in/check-out (Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007; Filter et al., 2007; Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007; Todd, Campbell, Meyer, & Horner, 2008), and First Step to Success (Carter & Horner, 2007; Filter et al., 2007; Golly, Stiller, & Walker, 1998; Walker et al., 1998). Beyond these packaged interventions, there are numerous other strategies that have proven effective when implemented in a small group context. These include activity schedules (e.g., Bryan & Gast, 2000; O Reilly, Sigafoos, Lancioni, Edrisinha, & Andrews, 2005), group contingencies (e.g., Bushell, Wrobel, & Michaelis, 1968; Embry, 2002; Hayes, 1976), increased supervision (Atkins et al., 1998; Lewis, Colvin, & Sugai, 2000), and select social skills programs (for a review of the evidence on social skills training see Cook et al., 2008; Gresham, Cook, Crews, & Kern, 2004). Although a thorough review of each of these programs is beyond the scope of this article, interested readers will find Hawken, Adolphson, Macleod, and Schumann s (2009) review of the evidence-base and key features of several Tier II interventions particularly helpful. Tier III supports are provided for students whose behavior is not responsive to Tier I and II interventions. Tier III supports are individualized interventions that require more extensive expertise to develop and often necessitate a significant amount of resources to implement. Tier III supports build upon the large literature base documenting the effectiveness of functional behavior assessment for guiding development of interventions (e.g., Fox & Davis, 2005; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2006; Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1994; McLaren & Nelson, 2009; Neef & Iwata, 1994) and thus consist of functionally-derived interventions matched explicitly to the needs of the student. At Tier III, interventions usually are multi-component, consisting of antecedent strategies to prevent problem behavior, instructional strategies to teach desired behavior, and consequence components to decrease problem behavior and increase the occurrence of desired behavior (for more detailed information on Tier III supports within the SWPBS framework, see Anderson & Scott, 2009). Across all tiers of SWPBS, the enhancement of student academic and social outcomes is rooted in evidence-based practices supported by (a) the use of data to guide decision making on all aspects of interventions, and (b) systems to support effective implementation. The rationale for this is that simply choosing to implement an intervention that has empirical support does not guarantee that it can or will be implemented effectively or sustained over time in a school. Effective and sustained implementation requires that schools invest in data systems to determine which students are most likely to benefit from a given intervention, and also to assess whether students are making adequate progress (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2004; Stecker & Fuchs, 2000). In addition, schools must invest in systems-features to support effective implementation. Systems needed for implementation may include providing access to technical assistance, ensuring initial and on-going training in the intervention is available, providing adequate time for key stakeholders to plan, assess, and guide implementation of the intervention, and ensuring that those involved with the intervention have the skills, time and resources to implement it. When a school implements an intervention without careful consideration of the systems features necessary to guide implementation, the intervention is likely to disappear quickly, be implemented with poor fidelity, or becomes part of a 34 TIER II INTERVENTIONS Page 8

15 hodgepodge of interventions, none of which have documented effects (Adelman & Taylor, 2003; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002; Gregory, Henry, & Schoeny, 2007; Walker, 2004). As an alternative to this piecemeal approach, SWPBS provides a framework within which schools can select evidence-based interventions that match the needs of their school, implement the interventions with fidelity and over time, and use data to guide decision-making around the intervention. Research on sustaining evidence-based practice suggests that contextual features such as these are useful for ensuring the durability of interventions (Adelman & Taylor, 2003; Fixsen et al., 2005; Gregory et al., 2007; Gresham, 2004; Schaughency & Ervin, 2006; Walker, 2004). Although interventions implemented at Tiers I and III of SWPBS have been described in the literature and have substantive empirical support, the middle tier has, until recently, received relatively little attention. Further, although there is a wealth of evidence-based interventions that could be implemented at Tier II, very little research has focused on implementation of these interventions within a continuum of behavior supports. As a result, contextual factors within the school that may be needed to support the sustained implementation of particular interventions have not been delineated (Gregory, et al., 2007; Schaughency & Ervin, 2006; Walker, 2004). In this paper, we define essential features of Tier II interventions within the framework of SWPBS and provide guidelines for determining which Tier II interventions best match the needs of students. We then describe how schools plan for both initial and sustained implementation of Tier II interventions and conclude with a description of possible directions for future research and practice. Essential Features of Tier II Interventions Consistent with the empirically validated components of behavioral skills training (Botvin, 2000; Frey, Hirschstein, & Guzzo, 2001; Miltenberger et al., 2004; St. Lawrence, Jefferson, Alleyne, & Brasfield, 1995), Tier II interventions include (a) explicit instruction of skills (e.g., pro-social skills, academic skills), (b) structured prompts for appropriate behavior, (c) opportunities for the student to practice new skills in the natural setting, and (d) frequent feedback to the student. In addition, many Tier II interventions might include a mechanism for fading support when appropriate, and a means for communicating regularly with a student s parents. First, Tier II interventions focus on increasing pro-social behavior and thus involve explicitly teaching expected behavior to the student. Explicit teaching is accomplished by reviewing what is expected and providing both examples and nonexamples of the expected behaviors. Many times role-playing with feedback occurs as well. For example, a counselor teaching a social skills lesson on sharing might define sharing and then ask group members to provide examples and non-examples. Students then might practice sharing with one another and then receive feedback on their skills. Second, Tier II interventions include structured prompts for appropriate behavior. These help to prevent problem behavior by prompting more appropriate behavior before a problem has occurred. Check-in/check-out (Fairbanks et al., 2007; Filter et al., 2007; Hawken et al., 2007; Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008), a frequently used Tier II intervention for Within school-wide positive behavior support, specific interventions are not dictated within tiers; instead, SWPBS is a framework to guide schools in the selection, implementation, and maintenance of evidence-based interventions. students with disruptive or inattentive behavior, is a pointcard intervention that is aligned with the Tier I component of SWPBS (i.e., students earn points throughout the day for exhibiting behaviors aligned with the school s school-wide expectations). In check-in/check-out, students meet with an intervention coordinator at the beginning of the day to receive their point card and review behavioral expectations. Expected behaviors are printed on the point card, which students carry with them and turn in to their teachers at the start of each class period. Teachers then rate the students behaviors according to how well they have met the expectations. This provides teachers with multiple opportunities to review and prompt desired behaviors. Third, all Tier II interventions provide opportunities to practice skills. Following explicit instruction and daily review of the desired behaviors, students are regularly provided with opportunities to practice desired behaviors and receive regular feedback. For example, if a counselor works with a small group of students on responding to adult-provided feedback appropriately, the counselor might role-play different situations by giving mock critical feedback to a student and having them practice responding. In addition, the counselor might inform teachers and parents of the skills covered during a given week and ask that they help students practice in natural settings. Fourth, Tier II interventions provide frequent opportunities for feedback. Although teachers certainly can praise or correct a student at any time, establishing certain times for feedback makes it more likely that the student will receive this important information regularly. For example, in First Step to Success (Golly et al., 1998; Walker, Golly, McLane, & Kimmich, Page 9 TIER II INTERVENTIONS 35

16 2005; Walker et al., 1998), frequent feedback is provided via presentation of a green (for appropriate behavior) or red (for inappropriate behavior) card upon which points are tallied. Points are delivered every 30 s and as long as a student engages in desired behavior, points are accumulated on the green card; however, any inappropriate behavior results in presentation of the red card and accumulation of points on this card. At the end of the period, the student earns a free-time activity for the class if 80% or more points were accumulated on the green card. In addition to explicit instruction, prompts, opportunities to practice, and feedback, Tier II interventions might also include strategies for fading support as the student gains new skills. Given that the ultimate goal of Tier II interventions should be to provide students with the skills needed to succeed in school with minimal supports, fading often is a crucial component of an intervention plan. Of course, not all interventions can be faded entirely. For example, if an anger management group is designed to be conducted for 14 weeks, a plan should be developed to ensure that students will receive some support although in a less intensive fashion after the group ends. The manner in which intervention fading occurs will vary greatly according to the specifics of the intervention. However, in all cases, progress monitoring data should be used to guide decisions regarding intervention fading. Fading should be attempted only after improvements in target responses have consistently occurred for a sufficient period of time. For example, it is recommended that fading of check-in/check-out not be attempted until a student has been meeting their goals (i.e., earning a minimum of 80% of possible points per day) for at least 4 weeks (Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2003). Finally, many Tier II interventions include a system for communicating with parents. This provides a means for parents to become a part of their child s education by staying informed of progress, and also by encouraging expected behaviors at home. Some interventions (e.g., check-in/check-out, check and connect) include a specific format for connecting parents and educators (such as a home note with check boxes to indicate student performance each day). Selecting Tier II Interventions to Meet School Needs and Resources Implementing a continuum of interventions in a school requires careful planning to determine which interventions are needed. To identify an appropriate Tier II intervention, schools first need to identify frequently occurring problems exhibited by students who are not responsive to Tier I interventions. One way to do this is to review data sources that occur naturally in the school (such as office discipline referrals, attendance records, and academic reports) to identify common characteristics across groups of students. These reviews should focus on the entire population of students who are not responding to Tier I, not on the behavior problems exhibited by any student in particular. For example, if a large number of office discipline referrals in a school are coming from classrooms (as opposed to common areas) and are for disruptive types of behavior, a Tier II intervention designed for implementation within classrooms could be selected (Crone et al., 2003; Fairbanks et al., 2007). Similarly, if a significant number of students with recurring problem behavior are English language learners who are avoiding academic tasks related to reading, a Tier II intervention could be developed that allows students to review vocabulary and specific content prior to a particular assignment (e.g., Preciado, Horner, & Baker, 2009). Likewise, if multiple students struggle with organizational skills, the school could implement a program that teaches self-management skills (for a comprehensive review of the use of self-management interventions in educational settings, see Briesch & Chafouleas, 2009). Many schools appear to select an intervention based on recommendations from local experts, such as counselors, teachers returning from a conference, the SWPBS district coach, or district administrators. Although these sources might provide useful information, before an intervention is selected, it is critical that the school ensure that empirical research supports the efficacy of the intervention (Kratochwill, Albers, & Shernoff, 2004; Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2003; Kratochwill & Stoiber, 2002). Along with conducting literature searches of particular interventions, school personnel might also access web-based resources such as the What Works Clearinghouse ( ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ ) and the Promising Practices Network ( to identify interventions with empirical documentation of efficacy. In addition to making sure a particular intervention is evidence-based, schools must ensure that they have the capacity and resources to implement the intervention effectively and to sustain implementation over time (Fixsen, & Blase, 2009; Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, & Wallace, 2009). Key issues to consider include the level of expertise required to implement the intervention, the number of staff hours (coordinators, teachers, etc.) required to implement the intervention, and the cost of any materials that must be purchased. This knowledge will allow a school to determine whether the intervention can be adequately implemented with available resources and expertise. After an intervention has been selected, effective and sustained use of the intervention will require identification of the behavior problems best suited to the intervention, the settings in which the intervention can be used, the skills needed by the implementer, and the criteria by which intervention success or failure will be judged. Table 1 provides an example of a template schools might use to define these features using check-in/ check-out as an example. Guiding questions are presented in the left-hand column, whereas answers specific to check-in/ check-out are provided in the right-hand column. Planning for Initial and Sustained Implementation If an intervention is to be implemented with fidelity and if that implementation is to be sustained over time, careful 36 TIER II INTERVENTIONS Page 10

17 Table 1. Group Intervention Template Completed for Check-in/Check-out. Intervention decisions Description of intervention What are the behavior(s) to increase? What are the behavior(s) to decrease? What are the inclusion criteria for which students is this intervention a good fit? What are the exclusion criteria who will not begin this intervention? What is the goal? What defines lack of progress toward the goal when will modification or discontinuation of the intervention be considered? What is a successful outcome; when will intervention fading be considered? What data will be collected, by whom and how frequently? Who will graph the data? How often will progress monitoring occur and who is responsible? How will fidelity be assessed--are we doing what we said we would do? Information specific to intervention Check-in/check-out is in place throughout the day, in all academic settings. Behaviors aligned with definitions of school-wide expectations Behaviors that violate school rules Student receives 2 or more office referrals in a month or 4 across the school year for social behavior concerns during academic routines. Teacher requests assistance for social behavior concerns during academic routines. Student avoids adult attention. Student s behavior is dangerous to self or others. Student s behavior occurs only during one academic routine. Student s behavior is due to academic skill deficits not currently addressed. Earning 80% or more of possible points each day Two consecutive weeks with less than an average of 70% of points earned per day 90% or more points earned, on average, per day, for 6 consecutive weeks Teacher(s) complete the point card at scheduled checks each day. The intervention coordinator or an assignee Graphs are examined at least weekly by the intervention coordinator. If a student earns less than 80% of points on average for 2 consecutive weeks, the coordinator will meet with the student s teacher(s) to review the program and pinpoint possible fidelity problems. Note. The questions in the left-hand column guide school teams in defining how data-based decision-making will occur for a given Tier II intervention. Teams record their decisions in the right column. The right-column of this table was filled out for check-in/check-out to illustrate how the table might be used. Different decision rules might be reached by a team for check-in/ check-out or for other interventions. attention must be paid to designing a system to support implementation. Although several behavior analytic studies have shown that consultation and direct training increases the fidelity of interventions implemented by educators (Burns, Peters, & Noell, 2008; Codding, Feinburg, Dunn, & Pace, 2005; Noell et al., 2005; Sterling-Turner, Watson, & Moore, 2002), relatively little research has focused on the variables necessary to ensure initial and sustained implementation. Recent reviews of the literature (Fixsen et al., 2005; Gregory et al., 2007; Schaughency & Ervin, 2006), along with experience gleaned from studying implementation of Tier I strategies (Benazzi, Horner, & Good, 2006; Colvin, 2007; Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005; Sugai & Horner, 2009a, 2009b; Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, 2001), suggest the following features are important for successful implementation: (a) team-based planning to drive implementation, (b) data-based decision-making, and (c) building the intervention infrastructure. Teams to Drive Implementation All Tier II interventions must be grounded in an effective teaming process to provide individual student support and data-based decision making. The team is responsible for Page 11 TIER II INTERVENTIONS 37

18 (a) selecting students who might benefit from the intervention, (b) determining which intervention a student receives, and (c) monitoring progress. Although the specific members of a team will vary from school to school, certain roles are critical. First, effective teams include someone who can allocate resources (i.e., an administrator). In addition, teams should include a staff member with training and expertise in behavioral assessment (and function-based support, if this team makes decisions about Tier III interventions), and a staff member who oversees implementation of the Tier II intervention(s). Teams also should include representation from both regular and special education. In our experience, teams generally are more effective if they consist of 6 or fewer individuals, and thus one person might serve multiple roles. In larger schools (i.e., over 600 students), the sheer number of students who are unresponsive to Tier I may require the development of multiple intervention teams to adequately address the number of student referrals. For example, in a middle school of 800 students, if only 10% of students are not responding to Tier I, there would be 80 students who might benefit from a Tier II intervention. Meeting the needs of all students might require the formation of one team that oversees implementation of Tier II interventions and several smaller teams focused on progress monitoring specific interventions. Critical to the success of any Tier II intervention is identifying a person to coordinate implementation. The role of the coordinator involves ensuring decision rules are used for the intervention (described next), training new teachers and staff in the intervention, making certain that needed resources (e.g., items for reinforcers, daily progress report cards) are available, meeting with teachers, students, and parents when a student is going to begin an intervention, problem solving with involved parties 38 TIER II INTERVENTIONS BAIP-Vol3No1.indb 38 as needed to facilitate success, graphing each student s progress data, and providing updates of progress to the implementation team. Clearly, these responsibilities will not be accomplished easily by a teacher with a full teaching schedule. In some schools, these roles are divided amongst two or more people. If this is not possible, one person may be assigned an overall coordination role to ensure all tasks are done in a timely and effective manner. The coordinator will need to have the training, background knowledge, time, and resources to effectively manage the program with fidelity. For example, coordination of check-in/check-out requires about 10 hours per week for 30 students (Crone et al., 2003). Data to Guide Decision-Making Within SWPBS, all decisions regarding interventions are data-based. Such decisions include determining (a) which intervention a student should receive, (b) whether individual students are making adequate progress, (c) whether the intervention is being implemented with fidelity, and (d) the extent to which the intervention is beneficial overall. Matching interventions to student needs. A variety of data sources can be used to determine which students might benefit from Tier II supports and what interventions might be most effective. One commonly used source is office discipline referral patterns. When office discipline referral patterns are used, not responding to Tier I must first be defined. For example, a school might define non-responders as students earning more than a certain number of referrals in a given month (e.g., two in one month) or across the entire year (e.g., four in a year). These data are examined on a regular schedule, typically monthly, to determine which students might benefit from additional supports. Office Page 12 4/18/10 11:04:14 PM

19 referral information also can be used to guide selection of a Tier II intervention by noting the problems resulting in an office referral (e.g., frequent truancy) and the location of most referrals (e.g., classroom). A second source of information is a teacher-completed request for assistance. Using this data source, any student for whom a teacher requests assistance due to problem behavior could be considered as unresponsive to the Tier I intervention (if the teacher is implementing good classroom behavior management aligned with the school s universal intervention). A request for assistance form should provide information such as a definition of the problem, the setting(s) in which the problem most often occurs, whether academic skills are involved, and what interventions have been tried previously. School teams usually review request for assistance forms weekly to match students to available Tier II interventions or to begin a functional behavior assessment for Tier III supports. A third strategy for early identification of students needing Tier II supports is to use periodic school-wide screening (Albers, Glover, & Kratochwill, 2007; Walker, Cheney, Stage, Blum, & Horner, 2005). School-wide screening most often occurs in one or more of three ways: multi-gated screening, administration of a scale to assess teacher judgment, and/or teacher nomination. Multi-gated screening tools use multiple methods to select students who might need additional supports. For example, the Systematic Screener for Behavior Disorders (Walker et al., 2005; Walker & Severson, 1992; Walker et al., 1994) begins with teacher nomination of students suspected to be in need of intervention (gate 1). Teachers are then asked to complete rating scales for each of those students (gate 2). Students whose behavior is rated as significantly problematic pass on to gate 3, which involves direct observation and administration of parent questionnaires. Students passing all gates then receive a Tier II intervention or evaluation for Tier III supports. As an alternative to multi-gated procedures, teachers might simply complete a rating scale for each student. An empirically-validated teacher report measure is the Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1993), which requires teachers to rate each student in the class on seven behavioral criteria associated with antisocial behavior. Finally, teacher nomination involves asking teachers to indicate students whose behavior matches provided descriptions (e.g., students with acting out behaviors, students whose behavior is suggestive of anxiety or depression). Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, and Gresham (2007) suggest that a teacher nomination process be followed by the completion of norm-referenced rating scales such as the Social Skills Improvement System (Gresham & Elliott, 2008) or the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). It is important to note that although behavioral function is considered (discussed) when selecting an intervention, a functional behavior assessment typically is not conducted prior to implementation of Tier II supports. The rationale is that Tier II interventions should be implemented quickly and efficiently, and conducting a functional behavior assessment requires extensive time and resources. Thus, the functional behavior assessment typically is reserved for the design of Tier III interventions. Progress monitoring of Tier II interventions. As shown in Table 1, school teams develop data-based rules to guide decisions regarding whether a student is making adequate progress on a Tier II intervention. The first step in this process When a school implements an intervention without careful consideration of the systems features necessary to guide implementation, the intervention is likely to disappear quickly, be implemented with poor fidelity, or becomes part of a hodgepodge of interventions, none of which have documented effects. Page 13 is identifying objective, measurable outcomes and setting an intervention goal. For example, if a homework club is used in the school, the goal might be Students will turn in 50% of homework by week 2 and 80% by week 6. Goals are not set for individual students; rather, a general goal is set for all students to facilitate efficient planning and monitoring. These predetermined decision rules allow for easy progress monitoring of individual student outcomes. In most schools with which we work, one or two people on the team review graphs of student progress every few days and the entire team meets every other week to monitor the progress of all students. At this bi-weekly meeting, the intervention coordinator provides a summary of all students receiving the intervention. For example, Of the 28 students on homework club, 25 are meeting their goals. Also, 5 students have been on homework club for 10 weeks and have met criteria for fading. The team would then review the data only for those students who were not meeting goals and for students who were ready for fading. The team uses data to guide decisions regarding whether to (a) maintain the current intervention, (b) fade the current intervention, (c) increase the intensity of the intervention or (d) change the intervention altogether. If the intervention requires significant modification, or if it is to be terminated due to lack of progress, a functional behavior assessment is conducted to determine a more appropriate intervention. For example, if a student is not responding to an intervention that relies on teacher-provided feedback, and a functional behavior assessment interview suggests the student s disruptive behavior is sensitive to peer attention, the TIER II INTERVENTIONS 39

20 intervention might be modified such that peer attention (rather than adult attention) is provided for appropriate behavior. Monitoring fidelity of implementation. Assessment of fidelity is important, as research shows that interventions in schools often are not implemented as designed and that poor implementation can have deleterious effects on outcomes (Gresham, MacMillan, Beebe-Frankenberger, & Bocian, 2000; Lane, Bocian, MacMillan, & Gresham, 2004). Further, monitoring fidelity and providing feedback can enhance the integrity of the intervention (DiGennaro, Martens, & McIntyre, 2005; Sterling-Turner et al., 2002). Measuring fidelity can be a complex or a simple process. A complex measurement of fidelity might include having someone collect direct observation data to assess the extent to which key features of the intervention were implemented as planned (DiGennaro et al.). At the other end of the spectrum, fidelity might be assessed by asking teachers to complete a weekly rating scale indicating the extent to which they implemented the intervention as planned (e.g., 1 = I did not implement this as planned and 4 = I implemented this intervention exactly as planned ). Complexity is usually negatively correlated with reliability; therefore, the benefits of a complex system must be weighed against the time needed to implement it and the benefits received. The implementation status of the overall Tier II intervention system within a school can be measured via a systems-level tool such as the Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (Anderson et al., 2008) which is completed by external reviewers, or the Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (Anderson et al., 2009), which is completed by the school team. Both of these instruments allow for comprehensive assessment of the systems, data management, and practices involved in Tiers II and III behavior supports. Further, both measures provide quantifiable documentation of the level of implementation, which can be monitored over time. In addition, the Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers assists teams in building an action plan to guide further implementation of Tiers II and III supports. Monitoring overall effectiveness and value of an intervention. If the program is being implemented with fidelity, the team should then determine whether the investment of resources in the intervention is providing a sufficient return, or if another intervention might be a better investment. In addition, outcomes achieved via Tier II interventions must be reviewed periodically because the needs of a school might change over time. For example, 10 years ago a middle school might have been concerned primarily with increasing positive student interactions. Although this might still be important, an additional focus might now be on early drop-out prevention, as research suggests that intervention programs to prevent school dropout can be highly effective (Christenson & Thurlow, 2004). Changes in the characteristics of students with challenging behavior, shifts in student demographics, and improvements in schoolwide programming all could potentially have an impact on the types of Tier II interventions that may be most beneficial in a school. Therefore, teams should regularly evaluate the number of students being referred to each Tier II intervention and also examine the percentage of those students who are responding successfully (i.e., meeting behavioral goals). Building the Intervention Infrastructure Tier II interventions are designed to be implemented within 5 days of an identified need. Schools can meet this criterion only if staff members are trained in implementation of the interventions, have agreed to use them, and have the needed materials readily accessible. Thus, school administrators should allocate resources to the purchase (if needed) and maintenance of any necessary supplies. Equally important is ensuring that all staff who might be involved with selected interventions (e.g., referring a student, prompting appropriate behavior, recording data) are sufficiently trained. Many schools accomplish this by holding annual staff in-services in which features of the interventions are reviewed. When a student begins an intervention, the coordinator might simply meet with the student s teachers briefly to review the intervention and to address any concerns. Implementation of Tier II interventions is more likely to occur with fidelity and to be sustained over time if the school has a written procedures manual. The manual should contain documentation of key features of the intervention, as well as information about how the intervention is implemented within that particular school (or school district). A written procedures manual that is reviewed periodically will help ensure that the intervention continues to be implemented as designed. Although a written manual may seem unnecessary in a school where most teachers are familiar with the intervention and the coordinator is in charge of all key aspects, maintaining a manual will help ensure sustainability over time. For example, if there is a change in roles (e.g., a new coordinator is appointed), a written manual will assist with the transition and ensure that the intervention is not person-dependent. Directions for Future Research and Practice Effectively meeting the social and academic needs of all students in a school requires a continuum of interventions varying in intensity. With regards to Tier II interventions, more research is needed to (a) define systems for data use, (b) delineate effective interventions for anxious, depressed, and withdrawn behavior, and (c) document sustainability over time. First, research is needed to define and document effects of systems for data-based decision-making that are efficient and effective in school settings. For Tier I interventions, office discipline referrals often are used to assess outcomes. Although office discipline referral patterns might be one indicator of overall effects of a Tier II intervention within a school, they are unlikely to be useful for progress monitoring because they do not provide frequent and repeated measurement. Daily report cards (Chafouleas, McDougal, Riley-Tillman, Panahon, & Hilt, 2005; Chafouleas, Riley-Tillman, & Sassu, 2006) have promise in this area, but have been used primarily for interventions in place across the school day. Research is needed 40 TIER II INTERVENTIONS Page 14

21 to determine whether daily report cards can be used to monitor a wider variety of interventions, including those that occur for brief periods of time during a school day (such as social skills groups). In such a scenario, the daily report card might target skills addressed in the group (e.g., uses problem-solving skills as taught ). Provided that teachers were familiar with skills taught in the intervention, they could then provide periodic ratings of the extent to which a student used or failed to use newly acquired skills. Second, most Tier II interventions are designed for students who engage in disruptive behavior. However, many children have difficulty at school due to internalizing behaviors, such as social withdrawal and behaviors labeled as shy, anxious, or depressed. Within clinical behavior analysis and behavior therapy, there are a variety of evidence-based interventions for these problems; however, most are designed for implementation by psychologists in clinical settings. Given that children spend a large amount of time at school and likely experience problems there, assessing the use of clinical strategies in school settings is an important area of investigation. Successful transportation of interventions from clinic to school will require that pulling students out of class for intervention is avoided whenever possible and that the integrity of interventions is maintained with limited staff time and training. While it is the case that some clinical interventions likely cannot be transported effectively to school settings (e.g., long-term group therapy for children meeting criteria for major depressive disorder), it seems feasible that less intensive interventions could be implemented for students who do not present with severe behavioral concerns. For example, perhaps a mentor program could be adapted for children who report being anxious about school. Third, research is needed to evaluate the sustainability of Tier II interventions over time. Although a growing body of work supports the utility of Tier II interventions within a three-tiered framework, most studies focus on implementation within a single year (e.g., Carter & Horner, 2009; Hawken et al., 2007; McCurdy, Kunsch, & Reibstein, 2007). Research is needed to document outcomes across multiple years and to document the systems features that facilitate or inhibit successful implementation. If Tier II interventions are to be applied and used systematically in schools, then school-based, behavior-analytic practitioners will play an important role. These practitioners can help move schools away from reactive, highly resource intensive assessment and intervention models, and instead guide them to a data-driven, prevention-oriented approach. Using a multi-tiered, data-based approach will allow behavior analysts to assist schools in maximizing resources by providing low to moderate intensity interventions (i.e., Tier II) to the majority of students, thereby reserving highly resource intensive assessment and intervention (i.e., functional behavior assessment and function-based intervention) for those few students with significant need. References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Moving prevention from the fringes into the fabric of school improvement. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 11, Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2003). On sustainability of project innovations as systemic change. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 14, Albers, C. A., Glover, T. A., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2007). Where are we, and where do we go now? Universal screening for enhanced educational and mental health outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 45, Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check & Connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology, 42, Anderson, C., Childs, K., Kincaid, D., Horner, R. H., George, H. P., Todd, A. W., Sampson, N. K., & Spaulding, S. A. (2009). Benchmarks for advanced tiers. Eugene, OR: Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon. Anderson, C. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Sampson, N. K. (2008). Individual student systems evaluation tool. Eugene, OR: Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon. Anderson, C. M., & Scott, T. M. (2009). Implementing functionbased Support within school-wide positive behavior support. In Handbook of Positive Behavior Support (pp ). NY: Springer. Retrieved from _28. Atkins, M. S., McKay, M. M., Arvanitis, P., London, L., Madison, S., Costigan, C, & Webster, D. (1998). An ecological model for school-based mental health services for urban low-income aggressive children. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 25, Ayllon, T., & Roberts, M. D. (1974). Eliminating discipline problems by strengthening academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, Becker, W. C., Madsen, C. H., & Arnold, C. R. (1967). The contingent use of teacher attention and praise in reducing classroom behavior problems. The Journal of Special Education, 1, Benazzi, L., Horner, R. H., & Good, R. H. (2006). Effects of behavior support team composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support plans. Journal of Special Education, 40, Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K. L., Minnis-Kim, M. J., Anderson-Harriss, S., Mortoz, K. B & Pigott, T. D. (2006). Schoolwide application of positive behavior support in an urban high school: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, Page 15 TIER II INTERVENTIONS 41

22 Botvin, G. J. (2000). Preventing drug abuse in schools: Social and competence enhancement approaches targeting individuallevel etiologic factors. Addictive Behaviors, 25, Briesch, A. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009). Review and analysis of literature on self-management interventions to promote appropriate classroom behaviors ( ). School Psychology Quarterly, 24, Bryan, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2000). Teaching on-task and onschedule behaviors to high-functioning children with autism via picture activity schedules. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, Burns, M. K., Peters, R., & Noell, G. H. (2008). Using performance feedback to enhance implementation fidelity of the problem-solving team process. Journal of School Psychology, 46, Bushell Jr., D., Wrobel, P. A., & Michaelis, M. L. (1968). Applying group contingencies to the classroom study behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, Carter, D. R., & Horner, R. H. (2007). Adding functional behavioral assessment to first step to success: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, Chafouleas, S. M., McDougal, J. L., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Panahon, C. J., & Hilt, A. M. (2005). What do daily behavior report cards (DBRCs) measure? An initial comparison of DBRCs with direct observation for off-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 42, Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Sassu, K. A. (2006). Acceptability and reported use of daily behavior report cards among teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention considerations, interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, Codding, R. S., Feinburg, A. B., Dunn, E. K., & Pace, G. M. (2005). Effects of immediate performance feedback on implementation of behavior support plans. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, Colvin, G. (2007). Seven steps for developing a proactive schoolwide discipline plan. NY: Corwin Press. Cook, C. R., Gresham, F. M., Kern, L., Barreras, R. B., Thornton, S., & Crews, S. D. (2008). Social skills training for secondary students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders: A review and analysis of the meta-analytic literature. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken, L. S. (2003). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The Behavior Education Program. NY: Guilford Press. DiGennaro, F. D., Martens, B. K., & McIntyre, L. L. (2005). Increasing treatment integrity through negative reinforcement: Effects on teacher and student behavior. School Psychology Review, 34, Drummond, T. (1993). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SSRS). OR: Josephine County Mental Health Program. Duda, M. A., Dunlap, G., Fox, L., Lentini, R., & Clarke, S. (2004). An experimental evaluation of positive behavior support in a community preschool program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, Embry, D. D. (2002). The Good Behavior Game: A best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, Evelo, D., Sinclair, M. F., Hurley, C., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. (1996). Keeping kids in school: Using Check and Connect for dropout prevention. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University. Retrieved from ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/ b/80/14/aa/a9.pdf. Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73, Filter, K. J., McKenna, M. K., Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H., Todd, A., & Watson, J. (2007). Check in/check out: A post-hoc evaluation of an efficient, secondary-level targeted intervention for reducing problem behaviors in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, Fishbein, J. E., & Wasik, B. H. (1981). Effect of the Good Behavior Game on disruptive library behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, Fixsen, D. L., & Blase, K. A. (2009). Implementation: The missing link between research and practice. FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network. Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, Publication #231. Fox, J., & Davis, C. (2005). Functional behavior assessment in schools: Current research findings and future directions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 1-4. Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., & Guzzo, B. A. (2001). Second step: Preventing aggression by promoting social competence. In Making schools safer and violence free: Critical issues, solutions, and recommended practices (pp ). Austin, TX: PRO- ED. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). What is scientifically-based research on progress monitoring? Washington, DC: National Center on Progress Monitoring, American Institute for Research. Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. C. (2006). Functional assessment, collaboration, and evidence-based treatment: Analysis of a team approach for addressing challenging behaviors in young children. Journal of School Psychology, 44, TIER II INTERVENTIONS Page 16

23 Golly, A. M., Stiller, B., & Walker, H. M. (1998). First step to success: Replication and social validation of an early intervention program. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6, Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredsnon, G. D. (2002) Current status and future directions of school-based behavioral interventions. School Psychology Review, 33, Gregory, A., Henry, D. B., & Schoeny, M. E. (2007). School climate and implementation of a preventive intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, Gresham, F. M., Cook, C. R., Crews, S. D., & Kern, L. (2004). Social skills training for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders: Validity considerations and future directions. Behavioral Disorders, 30, Gresham, F., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments. Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., & Bocian, K. M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, Hawken, L. S., Adolphson, S. L., Macleod, K. S., & Schumann, J. (2009). Secondary-tier interventions and supports. In Handbook of positive behavior support (pp ). New York: Springer. Retrieved from _17. Hawken, L. S., MacLeod, S. K., & Rawlings, L. (2007). Effects of the behavior education program (BEP) on office discipline referrals of elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to intervention for social behavior: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, Hayes, L. A. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive behavior support. In Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior support plans (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of selfinjury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Kratochwill, T. R., Albers, C. A., & Shernoff, E. S. (2004). Schoolbased interventions. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, Page 17 Kratochwill, T. R., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2002). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: Conceptual foundations of the Procedural and Coding Manual of Division 16 and the Society for the Study of School Psychology Task Force. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, Lane, K. L., Bocian, K. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Treatment integrity: An essential but often forgotten component of school-based interventions. Preventing School Failure, 48, Leedy, A., Bates, P., & Safran, S. P. (2004). Bridging the researchto-practice gap: Improving hallway behavior using positive behavior supports. Behavioral Disorders, 29, Lehr, C. A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2004). Addressing student engagement and truancy prevention during the elementary school years: A replication study of the Check & Connect model. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9, Lewis, T. J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (2000). The effects of precorrection and active supervision on the recess behavior of elementary students. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, Lewis, T. J., Powers, L. J., Kelk, M. J., & Newcomer, L. L. (2002). Reducing problem behaviors on the playground: An investigation of the application of schoolwide positive behavior supports. Psychology in the Schools, 39, Madsen Jr., C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, Markey, U., Markey, D. J., Quant, B., Santelli, B., & Turnbull, A. (2002). Operation positive change: PBS in an urban context. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, McCurdy, B. L., Kunsch, C., & Reibstein, S. (2007). Secondary prevention in the urban school: Implementing the Behavior Education Program. Preventing School Failure, 51, McLaren, E. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2009). Using functional behavior assessment to develop behavior interventions for students in Head Start. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior support. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, Miltenberger, R. G., Flessner, C., Gatheridge, B., Johnson, B., Satterlund, M., & Egemo, K. (2004). Evaluation of behavioral skills training to prevent gun play in children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, Murphy, H. A., Hutchison, J. M., & Bailey, J. S. (1983). Behavioral school psychology goes outdoors: The effect of organized games on playground aggression. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, TIER II INTERVENTIONS 43

24 Neef, N. A., & Iwata, B. A. (1994). Current research on functional analysis methodologies: An introduction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2009). Moving from good ideas in educational systems change to sustainable program implementation: Coming to terms with some of the realities. Psychology in the Schools, 46, Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., & Resetar, J. L. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34, O Reilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Edrisinha, C., & Andrews, A. (2005). An examination of the effects of a classroom activity schedule on levels of self-injury and engagement for a child with severe autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, Preciado, J. A., Horner, R. H., & Baker, S. K. (2009). Using a function-based approach to decrease problem behaviors and increase academic engagement for Latino English language learners. The Journal of Special Education, 42, Ringer, V. M. J. (1973). The use of a token helper in the management of classroom behavior problems and in teacher training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, Schaughency, E., & Ervin, R. (2006). Building capacity to implement and sustain effective practices to better serve children. School Psychology Review, 35, Severson, H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R., & Gresham, F. M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, St. Lawrence, J. S., Jefferson, K. W., Alleyne, E., & Brasfield, T. L. (1995). Comparison of education versus behavioral skills training interventions in lowering sexual HIV-risk behavior of substance-dependent adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, Sterling-Turner, H. E., Watson, T. S., & Moore, J. W. (2002). The effects of direct training and treatment integrity on treatment outcomes in school consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009a). Responsiveness-tointervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 17, 223. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009b). Defining and describing schoolwide positive behavior support. In Handbook of positive behavior support: Issues in clinical child psychology. (pp ). New York: Springer. 44 TIER II INTERVENTIONS Page 18

25 Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2001). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. In Making schools safer and violence free: Critical issues, solutions, and recommended practices. (pp ). Austin, TX: PRO- ED. Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T., Cohen, J., & Hall, S. (1997). School-wide behavioral support: Starting the year off right. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). The effects of a targeted intervention to reduce problem behaviors: Elementary school implementation of Check In Check Out. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, Walker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., Blum, C., & Horner, R. H. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, Walker, H. M. (2004). Commentary: Use of evidence-based intervention in schools: Where we ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. School Psychology Review, 33, Walker, H. M., Golly, A., McLane, J. Z., & Kimmich, M. (2005). The Oregon First Step to Success replication initiative: Statewide results of an evaluation of the program s impact. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, Walker, H. M., Kavanagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (1998). First step to success: An early intervention approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6, Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1992). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD). Second Edition. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., Nicholson, F., Kehle, T., Jenson, W. R., & Clark, E. (1994). Replication of the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) procedure for the identification of at-risk children. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, Warren, J. S., Edmonson, H. M., Griggs, P., Lassen, S. R., McCart, A., Turnbull, A., & Sailor, W. (2003). Urban Applications of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support: Critical Issues and Lessons Learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, Action Editor: Jennifer L. Austin, Ph.D., BCBA Page 19 TIER II INTERVENTIONS 45

26 STEP 2 ESTABLISHING A TIER II TEAM: MEMBERSHIP AND ROLES Essential to establishing, monitoring, and refining Tier II systems and practices is the creation of a school site Tier II team. This team ensures access to interventions, evaluates the fidelity of systems and practices, and regularly utilizes data to monitor the progress of students. The Tier II team must contain the following members: School Administrator: o Identify and access available resources o Provide information regarding fidelity of Tier I implementation both school-wide and across individual classrooms o Relay information regarding student behavior and previously associated consequences and interventions o Supervise staff providing Tier II interventions o Ensure communication to staff regarding progress of students receiving Tier II interventions o Provide professional development for staff School Psychologist: o Provide specialized information related to behavior assessment, interventions, and supports o Provide expertise regarding replacement behavior and functional analysis o Provide recommendations regarding criteria for Tier III identification o Provide professional development for staff Behavioral Intervention Specialist: o Provide direct intervention services to students o Coordinate and support staff providing intervention services o Track progress of students o Coordinate parent/guardian consent and contact o Coordinate pre-identification and intake of student information o Provide professional development for staff Page 20

27 In addition to the above required members, each school may elect to have other staff serve on the Tier II team. These staff should have either expertise related to: (a) providing Tier II interventions; (b) implementation of Tier I systems and practices, or (c) understanding the behavior of students within the school. In accordance with the Benchmark for Advanced Tiers (BAT) and the Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SSET), the Tier II team should meet at least every two weeks. In order to run an efficient meeting, the agenda for each meeting should be established in advance during the previous meeting. The Behavioral Intervention Specialist will then organize and provide the information necessary for the Tier II team to make decisions regarding student placement and progress. Well organized and efficient meetings occur when roles and norms are established for team members. The Tier II team should establish norms and should review them regularly. Meetings should have an established facilitator, note-taker, and time-keeper. Additionally, the team should establish procedures for resolving disagreements and unexpected absences of team members. Agendas for meetings will vary based on the needs of the school and the level of Tier II implementation. As a rule, the following should be regular agenda topics: Identification and placement of students needing Tier II support o Are appropriate students being referred? o Are we following our data-based decision rules? Implementation of interventions o Are students receiving support quickly? o Is there fidelity of implementation? o Do staff need training or support? Progress monitoring of students receiving Tier II support o Are students making acceptable progress? o Is any student s behavior escalating or dangerous? o Are we connecting the right students to the right interventions? Communication o What needs to be communicated? o How should it be communicated? o To whom do we need to share? o Who is responsible for communicating? Page 21

28 When establishing a Tier II team, consider the following guidelines: Implementation Guidelines Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. Ensure team contains the following: School Administrator School Psychologist Behavioral Intervention Specialist May contain other(s) as needed 2. Draft schedule for meetings at least every other month 3. Give team appropriate priority relative to school and District goals 4. Establish norms for operation 5. Establish procedures for running an efficient meeting (e.g., facilitator, note-taker, time-keeper) 6. Establish procedures for resolving disagreements and unexpected absences of team members 7. Establish how and when information regarding Tier II interventions and progress will be communicated to staff 8. Establish method for staff to provide feedback to the Tier II team regarding Tier II interventions 9. Determine how, when, and by whom staff providing intervention services will receive professional development Resources Planning and reflection worksheet adapted from Sample Agenda with minutes adapted from Page 22

29 Planning and Reflection Worksheet for Conducting SWPBIS Tier II Team Meetings The planning and reflection worksheet is a guide for Tier II Team members when preparing, conducting, and follow-up on Tier II Team meetings. Preparation for the meeting is the responsibility of the Behavioral Intervention Specialist. Also contained are guiding questions for setting rules and procedures for the team to conduct efficient and effective meetings. Preparing H M L na 1 H M L na H M L na H M L na H M L na H M L na Review actions/agreements from previous minutes Identify/review/develop agenda items Invite/remind/prepare participants (advise in advance backup facilitator, timekeeper, minute taker, etc if needed) Prepare pre-identification data (e.g., universal screening information, ODRs, cume review, teacher information, function quick sort) for identified students Prepare/review materials including progress monitoring data reports for students Check/confirm logistics (e.g., room, location, time) Beginning H M L na H M L na H M L na H M L na H M L na H M L na Review purpose Review/assign roles Review/modify agenda items (e.g., discussion, decision, information) Assign # of minutes for each agenda item Set/review meeting norms and routines Update status of actions/agreements from previous meetings Conducting H M L na H M L na Follow agenda items Stay within timelines 1 H = high, M = medium, L = low, na = not applicable Page 23

30 H M L na H M L na H M L na Follow/review norms Restate/review/remind of purpose/outcomes Set actions and agreements Concluding H M L na H M L na H M L na H M L na H M L na H M L na Review/summarize actions/agreements Review/evaluate extent to which agenda items addressed Review new agenda items Review compliance with norms and routines Acknowledge/reinforce participation/actions/outcomes Indicate next meeting date/time/place Following-Up H M L na H M L na H M L na H M L na Distribute minutes/progress outcomes to staff as appropriate Complete actions/agreements Contact/remind participants of actions/agreements Prepare for next agenda Other Notes/Observations Norms Page 24

31 Routines for Conducting Effective and Efficient Meetings 1. How are decisions made? 2. How are problems/conflicts/disagreements resolved and processed? 3. How are roles/responsibilities (e.g., leadership, facilitation, recording minutes, reporting) assigned and conducted? 4. How will the Team proceed when a member is absent? Page 25

32 Meeting Agenda, Minutes and Problem-Solving Action Plan Form Date: Time: Location Norms: Today s Meeting November 1, :00 3:45 Conference Room Begin and end on time Next Meeting November 15, :00 8:45 Conference Room Be an active listener Stay on topic Follow through on all assigned tasks Reach consensus with thumbs up procedure Team Members Present: Bruce Wayne (Administrator/Facilitator), Diana Prince (Behavioral Intervention Specialist), Clark Kent (School Psychologist), Alan Scott (Campus Supervisor) Today s Agenda Items: 1. Review of Student DPR data for CICO 2. New Students 3. Staff CICO Training 4. Scheduling BAT Additional Agenda Items: Potential Problems Raised Agenda Item Discussion/Decision/Task (if applicable) Who? By When? Review of Student DPR data for Five students currently participating in CICO for the past two Diana Prince November 15, 2014 CICO weeks. A review of their graphs show that four are at or above their goal of 80%, so they will continue with data review scheduled in two weeks to see if they meet data decision rule for fading at that time. One student s data was reviewed due to poor response. After reviewing the fidelity of implementation, it was determined that CICO is not being implemented with fidelity due to the DPR not being consistently completed and the student not consistently checking out. Diana Prince will retrain the classroom teacher on completing the DPR and providing positive feedback, and will also arrange for an older student on the intervention to pick-up the student for check Bruce Wayne November 3, 2014 Page 26

33 out. New students meeting data decision rule for Tier II consideration Staff CICO Training Scheduling BAT Student s graphs will be brought to next team meeting. Diana Prince November 15, 2014 Diana Prince reported that no new students have met the data decision rule for Tier 2 intervention. Right now, the only staff trained on completing the DPR and providing positive feedback based upon the DPR are the fifth grade teachers, Clark Kent reported that he would be happy to train the 4 th grade teachers next week. We will use the CICO training video and resources for this training. The Tier II team needs to take the BAT and submit it to Diana Prince by December 15, The BAT will then be reviewed in January to prepare for the I-SSET in March. Clark Kent November 8, 2014 Diana Prince Clark Kent Bruce Wayne Alan Scott December 15, 2014 Other Issues Evaluation of Team Meeting (Mark your ratings with an X ) Yes So-So No 1. Was today s meeting a good use of our time? X 2. Did we do a good job of tracking whether we re completing the tasks we agreed? X 3. Have we done a good job of completing the tasks we agreed to? X 4. Are completed tasks having the desired effects on student behavior? X If some ratings are So-So or No, what can we do to improve things? Page 27

34 STEP 3 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL STUDENTS FOR TIER II SUPPORTS Multiple methods are used to identify students for Tier II interventions. No single method is likely to identify all students who may need Tier II supports. Tier II students may be identified for externalized or internalized problem behaviors. Students may be identified through various methods including: (a) Office Discipline Referrals; (b) a universal screener; and (c) requests. Considerations It is important to note that students should not receive Tier II services unless Tier I systems are established with fidelity within the environment in which a student is exhibiting behavior. If Tier I is not in place, the focus of intervention should be at the Tier I level. Likewise, the decision making criteria for screening students into Tier II should be established based on maximizing the resources available to the school. Over taxing available resources can cause poor delivery of Tier II services and failure to support students. Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) ODRs are a general indicator of externalized behavior. Each school should establish the decision making rule for the number of referrals a student must receive within a given time period before consideration for Tier II. Generally, receiving two or more ODRs in a four week time period should trigger consideration for support in an elementary school. Three or more in a four week time period is considered more appropriate for middle and junior high school. However, the decision making criteria should be established by the Tier II team so that the school may maximize available resources. Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) The SRSS is a universal screener designed to identify students with externalized behaviors. The screener is research based and has validated technical adequacy for use in K 12 grade settings. Teachers are provided the screening tool with the students in their class listed. Teachers then rate students in their class on seven items with a 4-point scale. The screening takes roughly minutes. As such, it efficiently allows for identification of students at risk. The screening tool is then collected by the Behavioral Intervention Specialist and used by the Tier II team to identify potential candidates for Tier II support. Page 28

35 The SRSS should be conducted during the first two weeks in October and again by the start of February. This allows for two opportunities to identify students. Middle and junior high schools may want to have teachers complete the SRSS as a grade level or identify only the most at risk students when completing the SRSS. SRSS documents contain information about a student and are considered student records. As such, a parent(s)/guardian(s) may request to see the SRSS information in relation to their student. All student record requests are processed through the Student Services Department. Requests At risk students may also be identified through requests for support. Parents, staff, and students may directly request service. Requests for service are often the best way to identify student with internalized behaviors. Staff should be encouraged to utilize requests for service for students displaying internalized behaviors. Students displaying externalized behaviors should be identified through the SRSS and ODRs. A sample staff request form is contained in the resource portion of this section. Though not directly a request for Tier II support, bullying complaints from students, parents, and staff may also be useful in identify students in need of service. Often, students who perceive they are being bullied need assistance in social skills in order to address difficult or challenging situations. This does not imply that bullying solutions should focus solely on victims of bullying. Bullying should be taken seriously and halted immediately. Older students may refer friends or themselves for support. Student requests for support should be taken seriously. Consent Related to Screening Federal regulations require that schools obtain consent for observations, testing, or interviews of a student that may be used to evaluate a student for special education services. As a general rule, if educators are collecting new data for the purpose of determining disability, an assessment plan is necessary as is parent/guardian consent. If educators do not suspect a disability and are reviewing existing data, such as how a student is responding to behavior supports or instruction, no consent or assessment plan is required. As such, behavioral screening or progress monitoring that gathers information by reviewing existing data or gathering input from classroom teachers and other educators, with no direct contact with the student, does not require parent/guardian consent or development of an assessment plan. The use of ODRs and the SRSS consider existing information and do not require administration of a screening instrument directly to a student; therefore they do Page 29

36 not require consent. If it is suspected that the student may have a disability, an assessment plan should be developed. When implementing procedures for identification of students that may potentially benefit from Tier II supports, consider the following guidelines: Implementation Guidelines Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. Identify procedures for processing and making requests for service 2. Inform staff and community of processes for requesting Tier II support 3. Schedule SRSS for first two weeks in October and prior to start of February 4. Train teachers on completing the SRSS 5. Schedule regular intervals for examining ODR data for potential at-risk students 6. Identify the decision making rules for considering a student for Tier II support Resources The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) is made available from the Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) SRSS Screening Tool (Word doc.) included below SRSS Electronic Tool with Graphs (Excel file) SRSS Overview training (PPT and Video file) Can be retrieved from: Sample Staff Request Form - adapted from Page 30

37 Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994) District: School: Teacher: Date: Directions: Each classroom teacher will fill in the names of the students in alphabetical order (use additional sheets of this Scale as needed). Rate all of the students on each behavior using the following scale: 0=Never, 1=Occasionally, 2=Sometimes, 3=Frequently. At the bottom of page 2, please summarize the number and percent of students in each risk category. The total scores range from 0 to 21, forming three risk categories: (L) Low Risk (0 to 3) (M) Moderate Risk (4 to 8) (H) High Risk (9 to 21) Student Name Steal Lie, Cheat, Sneak Behavior Problem Peer Rejection Low Academic Achievement Negative Attitude Aggressive Behavior Total (0-21) Risk (circle) 1. L M H 2. L M H 3. L M H 4. L M H 5. L M H 6. L M H 7. L M H 8. L M H 9. L M H 10. L M H Page 31

38 Student Name Steal Lie, Cheat, Sneak Behavior Problem Peer Rejection Low Academic Achievement Negative Attitude Aggressive Behavior Total (0-21) Risk (circle) 11. L M H 12. L M H 13. L M H 14. L M H 15. L M H 16. L M H 17. L M H 18. L M H 19. L M H 20. L M H 21. L M H 22. L M H 23. L M H SRSS Summary (for the classroom) Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Number of Students Percent of Students Page 32

39 Sample Staff Request Form Student Name Age: Grade: IEP: Yes No Teacher Completing: Date: Overall G.P.A. Language Arts Grade Math Grade Academic Information Do you believe that academic skills, including task completion, are impacting the problem behavior? Yes No Unsure Check those that apply: Internalized Behavior Concerns Emotionally flat Shy Withdrawn Anxious Sad/depressed often Lonely Difficulty making friends Hurts self Other Check those that apply: Externalized Behavior Concerns Frequently absent/tardy Contraband use/possession Disruptive Non-cooperative Lying/cheating Tantrums Bullying Aggressive towards others Steals Problem Behavior Occurrence When, where, and with whom are problem behaviors most likely? Schedule Activity (Times) Specific Problem Behavior Likelihood of Problem Behavior Low High With Whom does Problem Occur Page 33

40 Possible Function of the Problem Behavior Obtain Adult Attention Obtain Peer Attention Obtain Tangible/Activity Obtain Stimulation/Sensory Escape/Avoid Adult Attention Escape/Avoid Peer Attention Escape/Avoid Tangible/Activity Escape/Avoid Stimulation/Sensory Evidence supporting possible function: Strategies You Have Tried to Address Problem Behavior Check those that apply: Established positive relationship with student Pre-correction and redirection Tangible recognition for expected behavior 4:1 positive verbal feedback Retaught expected behavior Role played/practiced expected behavior Self-monitoring Modified assignments Change of schedule for activities Provided extra assistance Parent/Guardian contact Other (Specify) How has the student responded to the above checked strategies? Other Information What are the student s strengths, talents, and specific interests? What other information you think is important to know about this student? Page 34

41 STEP 4 MATCHING STUDENT BEHAVIOR TO, AND PROVIDING, TIER II INTERVENTIONS SWPBIS is grounded in the science of behavior or applied behavior analysis (ABA). Applied behavior analysis is the design, implementation, and evaluation of environmental modifications to produce socially significant improvement in behavior. It is based on the understanding that individuals behavior is determined by past and current environmental events. Additionally, behavior is considered a form of communication. Some children learn that the most efficient way to get their needs met is to communicate through problem behaviors. As such, the reason for the behavior must be considered when determining how to respond. Identification of the communicative function or purpose of behavior can assist in informing the most effective intervention to address reoccurring problem behaviors. When working to understand problem behavior patterns, keep in mind ABC: A (Antecedent) What happens before the behavior? What is the trigger? B (Behavior) What is the problem behavior? C (Consequence) What happens after the behavior occurs? Antecedent (A) Problem Behavior (B) Consequence (C) Definition: Conditions and circumstances that occur before behavior and increase the probability of a behavior occurring Definition: Observable behavior the child displays Definition: What happens after the problem behavior that maintains the problem behavior Example: Students are working or playing in groups Example: Child pushes or hits students near her Example: Students talk to or push the child In general, two major functions of behavior exist: Obtain/Get something o Attention/interaction o Control/power o Tangible object o Sensory stimulation Page 35

42 Escape/Avoid something o Attention o Task/Activity o Situation o Sensory stimulation In the example above, the communicative function (purpose) of the student s behavior is to obtain attention/interaction from peers. By gathering information regarding a behavioral situation using the ABC model it is possible to better understand the communicative function of a student s behavior. An intervention can then be matched to the function of the student s behavior. This process can also assist in understanding immediate behavior concerns displayed by students. By seeking to understand the conditions and environmental factors that facilitate or support the negative behavior, staff can make better decisions in how they respond to student behavior with consequences and interventions. Alejandro s Story, contained in the resource section, provides a look at a student s extreme behavior from a traditional view and from one where environmental and situational factors are considered. In the example, Alejandro displays extreme behavior due to a heightened state of trauma resulting from witnessing domestic violence, lack of sleep, anxiety, lack of food, and other factors escalating the student s heightened state of vigilance. Without trying to understand the antecedents to a student s behavior, administrators in the scenario suspend the student when what the student most needs is the security of the school setting and intervention support for dealing with the trauma he is experiencing at home. A full Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) is not recommended for student s being referred for Tier II support. However, by examining existing ODRs, records, SRSS screener, environmental observations, and conversations with the student s teacher, it is possible to hypothesize the function of a student s behavior. Data Collection by the Behavioral Intervention Specialist (BIS) Once a student has been identified as potentially in need of Tier II supports, the Behavioral Intervention Specialist should conduct a review of existing data on the student in order to hypothesize a function of behavior and sort the student into an Page 36

43 intervention that is likely to meet the needs of the student. The BIS should examine the student s: o ODRs o SRSS screen results o Interview teacher(s) of student o Cume records o Environment where behavior is occurring o Other existing records Once records have been reviewed, the BIS should hypothesize the function of the student s behavior and apply a function quick sort to find an intervention match. Each school should create a function quick sort table for the Tier II interventions available. The purpose of the function quick sort table is to assist the BIS and Tier II Team in selecting the intervention most likely to assist the student. An example function quick sort table is presented below: TARGETED INTERVENTION QUICK SORT MATRIX Increases opportunities for positive adult attention Increases opportunities for positive peer attention Promotes a positive, encouraging adult relationship Teaches replacement behaviors and/or skills Teaches problem solving Increases precorrection, prompts and structure Monitors risk factors Provides access to choice of alternatives/ activities Facilitates self monitoring Increases opportunity for stronger incentives/ positive reinforcement CHECK IN CHECK OUT SOCIAL/ ORGNIZATIONAL SKILLS GROUP MENTORING BEHAVIOR CONTRACT ALTERNATE LUNCH/ RECESS OTHER (Adapted from MiBLSi and Lori Newcomer, Ph.D. - Univ. of Missouri)?????????? Following the quicksort, the BIS should then present a recommendation to the Tier II team, based on the data collected, for placement in an intervention. It is possible that students who have been identified as being at risk may not benefit from Tier II supports. Students may exhibit behavior that is extreme enough to warrant assessment for Tier III or the BIS data collection may find that simple Page 37

44 environmental adjustments within the location that the behavior is occurring will mitigate future occurrences. Also, it may be more appropriate to adjust teacher behavior as it may serve as an environmental antecedent that brings about, or exacerbates, the problem behavior. Once selected for a Tier II support, the intervention should begin within a week of selection. Prior to the start of an intervention, the BIS should contact the parent(s)/guardian(s) to inform them of the reasons for selecting the intervention, obtain permission to begin the intervention, and explain their role in supporting the intervention. When matching student behavior to, and providing, Tier II interventions, consider the following guidelines: Implementation Guidelines Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. Develop procedures and timelines for data review on potential Tier II students by the BIS 2. Create a function quick sort sheet for the site based on available interventions 3. Follow Tier II team processes for determining Tier II interventions 4. Contact parent(s)/guardian(s) to: o Inform them of the intervention o Obtain consent to begin the intervention o Explain their role in supporting the intervention 5. Ensure an intervention begins within a week of selection 6. Ensure the method of progress monitoring for each student matches the intervention and needs of the student 7. Communicate to staff effected by the intervention of their role 8. Ensure staff providing intervention have been trained and understand fidelity of implementation Tier II Interventions Tier II interventions share the same basic characteristics. In general, Tier II interventions contain the following: Explicit teaching of skills Structured prompts Opportunities or practice of skills or replacement behaviors Page 38

45 Frequent feedback A system for communication with the home The following are examples of Tier II interventions. Interventions are described briefly in this document. Before implementing an intervention staff should receive training on the essential elements of the intervention. Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) The Behavior Education Program: A Daily Check-In/Check-Out (often referred to as CICO; Crone, Hawken, & Horner 2010) is a Tier 2, group-oriented intervention, designed especially for students whose problem behaviors (a) are unresponsive to Tier I practices and systems, (b) do not require more immediate individualized interventions, and (c) are observed across multiple settings or contexts. Because CICO is group-based, standardized intervention, it is efficient and costeffective. For example, the program can accommodate a number of students, and students can enter the program within a few days following placement by the Tier II team. CICO also provides a built-in system for (a) monitoring students progress in the program, (b) evaluating the fidelity of implementation, and (c) transitioning to a self-managed program. Research conducted on CICO and similar programs have consistently demonstrated associated decreases in problem behaviors, office discipline referrals, and referrals for special education services. CICO includes the following practices: Increased positive adult contact Embedded social skills training Direct link to school-wide behavioral goals and expectations Frequent feedback Daily home-school communication Positive reinforcement contingent on meeting behavioral goals Who can benefit? Students with low level, disruptive problem behavior across settings Students with a pattern of office referrals Students who receive a number of office referrals above data decision mark Students who find adult attention reinforcing Page 39

46 For whom is the intervention not appropriate? Students with serious or violent behavior Students for whom referrals are context driven (e.g., unsupervised playground) When referrals come from one location The intervention can be modified for some students by adjusting the reinforcer to match the function: Adult attention-check in with adult, teacher and parent Peer attention-use peer interaction or activity as earned reinforcer Escape/avoid-reduce adult interaction, use avoid options as reinforcer Lack of academic skills-focus goals on academic instruction Basic approach: Define & teach behavioral expectations Build a regular cycle of checking in and checking out with adults Collect information for ongoing evaluation and adaptation Page 40

47 Students participating in a CICO intervention check in each morning with an adult staff member who, in a quick and efficient manner, greets the student, provides positive prompts for the day, and provides the student with a Daily Progress Report (DPR). The student then carries the DPR with them throughout the day for their teacher(s) to give feedback regarding meeting behavioral expectations. Students then return the completed DPR to a staff member and checks out; again, receiving prompts from the staff member and positive interaction with an adult. The DPR is then taken home so that the parent/guardian may see their student s progress. DPRs are compiled in a spreadsheet for progress monitoring purposes. Estimated Time for CICO Coordinator Tasks Task Frequency Duration Time/Week Morning Check-In Daily 30 minutes 150 minutes Afternoon Check-out & Daily 30 minutes 150 minutes Entering DPR Data Maintain Records: Daily 15 minutes 75 minutes a. Parent reports b. Student DPRs Orientation for students, families and teachers who are new to the program As needed 30 minutes for each student 30 minutes Prioritize students who will be discussed during team meetings Print student graphs that will be reviewed during team meetings Complete tasks from team meeting (e.g., implementation checks, graduation ceremonies, environmental checks) As often as the team meets As often as the team meets 20 minutes 20 minutes 15 minutes 15 minutes Daily 20 minutes 100 minutes Estimated Total Time Required = hours/week Page 41

48 Morning Check-In: 1. Greet each student individually 2. Collect the signed (by parents) DPR from the previous day 3. Check to see if student has necessary items for the day 4. Student takes a new DPR, signs and dates it 5. Prompt student to have a good day and meet his or her CICO goals 6. Give student reinforcer for checking in successfully Entering DPR Data and Creating Graphs: CICO data can be entered using the EXCEL spreadsheet provided in the resource section. Data should be graphed regularly to be reviewed at Tier II team meetings. For purposes of efficiency, the team should print or display those students who are priority. Prioritizing Students and Reviewing Data: The BIS should review all student graphs prior to Tier II team meetings. Students will continue to perform poorly, have poor attendance or who receive ODRs and/or suspensions should be reviewed by the team. During the team meeting data should be reviewed in order to progress monitor students and make decisions regarding implementation and next steps. Guidelines for progress monitoring and decision making are included in the section for Step 5. CICO Implementation Guidelines Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. Prioritize students for intervention based on decision making rules established by Tier II team 2. Create standardized Daily Progress Report (DPR) on two copy NCR paper 3. Train staff on their role in implementing CICO 4. Ensure system is in place to track student progress on DPRs 5. Behavioral Intervention Specialist (BIS) to coordinate: Morning check-in Afternoon check-out 6. Determine goals for students in the program 7. Provide information to parents and gain consent 8. Monitor fidelity 9. Ensure DPR results are entered into spreadsheet Page 42

49 Social/ Organizational Skills Groups (SOSG) Some students may have skills deficits that lead to problem behaviors. Similarly, students may lack an understanding of code switching from the behavioral norms of home and other environments to that of the school environment, or the skill in problem solving difficult situations, thereby, leading to responses considered inappropriate in a school setting. Social/ Organizational Skills Groups are designed to provide an intense dose of explicit instruction for students who have not acquired appropriate and/or adequate social or organizational skills. SOSG includes the following practices: Explicit teaching of social and/or organizational skills Opportunities for role playing and problem solving using learned social and/or organizational skills Increased positive adult contact Direct link to school-wide behavioral goals and expectations Frequent feedback Daily home-school communication Positive reinforcement contingent on meeting behavioral goals Who can benefit? Students who demonstrate skill deficits in specific areas (e.g., how to perform skills, when to perform a skill, etc.) can benefit from groups. Some of the most common skills students demonstrate difficulties with include the following: Active listening Following directions Staying clam when receiving feedback Problem solving Appropriate social interactions (e.g., greeting others, sharing, etc.) Asking for help Respectfully disagreeing Who will not benefit? Students who have requisite social or organizational skills Students with performance deficits or lack motivation Students disengaged from school Page 43

50 Basic approach: Define & teach skills based on identified deficits Build regular opportunities for role playing and feedback by all staff Collect information for ongoing evaluation and adaptation Stop, Think, Act Right (STAR) Framework: Through a committee of teachers and administrators, BCSD has identified a framework for teaching social and problem solving skills for use throughout the District. The framework establishes common language through the District for teaching social skills and universal behaviors. In addition, it creates a common way to assist students and staff problem solve, and think before acting. As a result, students are provided with the opportunity to take control of their behavior and apply the social and organizational skills they have acquired. STOP What s the problem I m facing? THINK What are the options and choices (or consequences) I have? ACT RIGHT What is the right action I should take? Page 44

51 The above framework should be posted in every classroom and considered for posting in other school locations. Every student should learn the framework and the associated hand signals. Display of the framework is essential to provide students with a visual cue for applying the framework. Visual displays should be used by staff to prompt students and remind them of applying the framework. The Stop, Think, Act Right (STAR) framework can also be applied by staff as it relates to their own decision making and behavior. Likewise, the framework can be used to examine student behavior before applying consequences and interventions. Staff should apply as follows when dealing with challenging behavior: STOP Check your thoughts and feelings before you act Take nothing personal Identify the behavior Identify how the behavior harms me or others THINK Why did the behavior occur? What is the context and environment? What were the triggers? ACT RIGHT What do I want the student to do? What intervention strategy should I apply? What consequence is appropriate? Social and organizational skill groups may be taught by any staff member using a defined curriculum such as Second Step or Skillstreaming. The District also may provide universal social or organization skill lessons for all students. Page 45

52 Second Step Skillstreaming SOSG Implementation Guidelines Yes No 1. Prioritize students for intervention based on decision making rules established by Tier II team Yes No 2. Create progress monitoring method either by using DPRs Yes No 3. Train staff on their role in implementing SOSG Yes No 4. Ensure system is in place to track student progress on DPRs Yes No 5. Determine goals for students in the program Yes No 6. Provide information to parents and gain consent Yes No 7. Behavioral Intervention Specialist (BIS) to communicate with staff regarding students in SOSG groups as needed Yes No 8. Monitor fidelity Yes No 9. Ensure DPR results are entered into spreadsheet Page 46

53 Check & Connect Mentoring Check & Connect is a structured mentoring program created by researchers at the University of Minnesota. The program is designed to enhance student engagement at school and with learning for marginalized, disengaged students, through relationship building, problem solving and capacity building, and persistence. Check & Connect consists of four components: Mentor Check A mentor who works with students and families for a minimum of two years Regular checks, uclizing data schools already collect on stduents' school adjustment, behavior, and educaconal progress Connect IntervenCons to reestablish and maintain students' conneccon to school and learning and to enhance social and acdemic competencies Families Engagement with families Who can benefit? The following are indicators of students that may benefit from a structured mentoring program: Indicators Behavioral: Late to school, skipping class, absenteeism including excessive excused absences, late to class frequently, history of educational neglect, behavior ODRs, suspensions, frequent school moves Academic: Not completing assignments, failing classes, reading below grade level, low test scores, in danger of not graduating, incomplete assignments Cognitive: Minimal interest in school, resistance to learning, low academic self-efficacy and perceived competence Affective: Social isolation, feelings of not belonging to school, low expectation to graduate Page 47

54 For whom is the intervention not appropriate? Students experiencing success in school Students with positive social networks in place Students with positive adult role models already in their lives Students displaying serious or violent behavior Students with referrals coming from one location Basic Approach: Meet regularly (e.g. weekly) to check-in with the student and review risk factors Record progress on Check section of monitoring form Record focus of contact with student in the Connect Basic section of the monitoring form Refer to Check & Connect resource lists for intervention suggestions Connect with parent(s)/guardian(s) Role of Mentors: The role of mentors is modeled after one of the commonly identified protective factors in resiliency literature the presence of an adult in the child s life to fuel motivation and foster the development of life skills needed to overcome obstacles. Check & Connect recommends that mentors may be school personnel, community professionals, or other community volunteers supervised by District staff. Mentors must be willing to work with assigned students for at least two years in order to provide stability for the student. Generally, school staff can support a caseload between one to five students each. Community volunteers may serve more or less students based on their availability. Also, schools may choose to partner with a local business, or contract with community services, such as AmeriCorps, for mentors. In addition to a willingness to commit their time, mentors should display the following characteristics: (a) willingness to persist with students; (b) personal belief that all students have abilities and strengths; (c) willingness to cooperate and collaborate with school staff; (d) advocacy skills; (e) organizational skills; and (f) a willingness to be a mentor (i.e. want to, not obligated to ). Page 48

55 Mentors meet regularly (e.g., weekly) to Check the student s risk factors and Connect with the student. If the student is showing increased signs of disengagement, then the frequency of mentor checking and monitoring of student performance should increase. The mentor provides basic interventions designed at building relationships and emphasizing the importance of staying in school. Increased risk leads to introduction of interventions to reconnect students to school. Basic Interventions done every time a mentor meets with a student include: Sharing check data Providing regular feedback Discuss staying in school Problem solve about risk factors Intensive Interventions done as indicated by elevated risk factors include: Teaching goal setting and problem solving skills Discussing problem behaviors and supports Discussing what it means to be a good student Teaching organizational and study skills Intensive problem solving with student; student and parent Facilitating social skill training Facilitating participation in school or community sponsored activities Facilitating tutoring or small group instruction Advocate for student with school staff Check & Connect also supports the Stop, Think, Act Right (STAR) framework for social skills and problem solving. Using the STAR framework, mentors help students integrate their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to meet the demands of the school environment. Connecting with Parents Mentors function as liaisons between home and school; striving to build constructive, family-school relationships, and increase home-school communication. Mentors support families to be more engaged at school and with their children s learning. Strategies include: Page 49

56 Calling parent(s)/guardian(s) regularly, not just when there are problems Writing notes informing what is going on in school Making home visits regarding educational progress Making home visits once a year for a positive reason Finding out whether families need suggestions, resources, or support to help students at home Directly invite parents to be partners in their child s education Attend meetings with parents Check & Connect Mentoring Implementation Guidelines Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. Prioritize students for intervention based on decision making rules established by Tier II team 2. Identify potential adult role models to serve as mentors 3. Obtain commitment from adult mentors to work with assigned students for at least two years 4. Train mentors in Check & Connect model and using the BCSD Check & Connect monitoring form 5. Provide mentor support and supervision in accordance with Board policy and administrative regulations 6. Monitoring mentor performance and evaluate program effectiveness Other Interventions In addition to CICO, SOSG, and Check & Connect mentoring, other interventions may be used to meet the needs of Tier II students. Creativity in designing interventions is encouraged. Interventions should meet the essential features of Tier II interventions mentioned in this section and utilize progress monitoring for data-based decision making. PBISWorld.com has several ideas for interventions. Other examples of interventions are: Behavior Contracts A contract between the teacher/school and the student in which the student must meet identified goals before obtaining a reward. Works well with students whose function of behavior is to obtain something. Page 50

57 Alternative Lunch/Recess For students whose behavior occurs strictly during lunch and recess, an alternative lunch or recess program can be organized in which structured activities are designed to help the student interact appropriately on the playground. The intervention consists of heavy monitoring by an adult staff member who can use interaction opportunities and play situations to teach social skills and problem solving in the actual context in which they occur. Brief Intervention An intervention program designed to focus on increasing insight and awareness regarding substance use and motivation toward behavioral change. The intervention is referred to as brief, as it only consists of two to four sessions with the intent of using motivational interviewing to empower the student to make changes regarding use rather than focus on enforcement and cessation. Aggression Replacement Training A sequenced curriculum for reducing anger and aggression while increasing social skills and moral reasoning. The training program contains 30 sessions and can be accomplished in as little as 10 weeks. Interactive Journaling - A participant-directed approach designed for participants to reflect, through writing, on making positive changes in their lives. Various thematic products (e.g., coping, life management, self-talk, feelings, anger, and substance using behaviors) can be purchased to match the concern presented by the student. Page 51

58 Resources Alejandro s Story adapted from Using Trauma Informed Strategies to De-Escalate Classroom Conflict a presentation by Jenn Rader Behavioral Intervention Specialist (BIS) record review adapted from Lori Newcomer, Ph.D. University of Missouri Resources for CICO o Crone, D., Hawken, L., & Horner, R. (2010). Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program. The Guilford Press, NY. Resources for SOSG o Second Step o McGinnis, E. (2012). Skillstreaming the Elementary School Child: A Guide for Teaching Prosocial Skills. Research Press Publishers. o McGinnis, E. (2012). Skillstreaming the Adolescent: A Guide for Teaching Prosocial Skills. Research Press Publishers, IL. Resources for Check & Connect o University of Minnesota (2012). Check & Connect: A Comprehensive Student Engagement Intervention. University of Minnesota, MN. DPR progress monitoring spreadsheet o Hawken, L., et al. (2005). The Behavior Education Program: A Check-In, Check-Out Intervention for Students at Risk. Video Disc file BEP Graphing_StudentTrackingProgram.xlsx o Positive Environments, Network of Trainers (PENT) Diana Browning Wright retrieved from Page 52

59 Alejandro s Story Version One Alejandro is a 7 th grade boy who has had 3 referrals this year. This morning, when he arrived at school, his teacher asked for his homework. Alejandro stated he did not have it. His teacher expressed frustration and gave him recess detention as a consequence. Shortly thereafter, a student in the class bumped into Alejandro. Alejandro punched him in the stomach and said, Don t touch me! His teacher, upset by the outburst, began to yell at Alejandro to stop and sit down. Alejandro then began to scream at the teacher, kick chairs and then sat under a desk. After 10 minutes of trying to get Alejandro out from under the desk by the campus supervisor, he was brought to the principal s office. The principal suspended Alejandro for 5 days for fighting and disruptive behavior. Questions Was this an appropriate response by the teacher and staff based on the information given? Do you have any concerns with the response or is there anything you would have done differently? Read version 2 of Alejandro s Story. Does this version change your opinions? Page 53

60 Version Two Alejandro is a 7 th grade boy with 3 referrals this year. He comes from a highly under- resourced neighborhood. He has been witnessing severe domestic violence between his parents since he was a baby. One night, in front of Alejandro, his father beat up and injured his mother so badly that a neighbor called the police, his father was handcuffed and taken away by the police and his mother was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Alejandro slept little that night, terrified and anxious about what would happen to his mother and father. In the morning, Alejandro s neighbor took him to school. This morning when he arrived at school, his teacher (who do not know about his traumatic experience) asked him for his homework. Alejandro stated he did not have it. His teacher expressed frustration and gave him recess detention as a consequence. Alejandro was upset and triggered by being in trouble with his teacher. Shortly thereafter, a student in the class accidently bumped into Alejandro. Already triggered to some degree into a heightened state of vigilance (i.e. survival mode ), this physical contact fully triggered Alejandro into a fight/flight reaction. Alejandro punched him in the stomach and said, Don t touch me! His teacher, upset by the outburst, began to yell at Alejandro to stop and sit down which further escalated Alejandro. Alejandro then began to scream at the teacher, kick chairs and sat under a desk. After 10 minutes of trying to get Alejandro out from under the desk by the campus supervisor (during which time his teacher felt helpless and defeated, and the other students looked on in fear and frustration), he was brought to the principal s office. The principal suspended Alejandro for 5 days for fighting and disruptive behavior. Thus, inadvertently exposing Alejandro not only to a major loss of instructional time, but also to a period of time during which he would have no refuge from the trauma and suffering in his home life. Page 54

61 Tier II Student Record Review Student: Teacher: Grade: School: Reviewer: Review Date: Reason for review: SRSS (#/21) ODRs (#) Request (by whom) Attendance K Total tardy & absent out of total days Tardy / Absent / Has student been retained? If so, what grade(s)? Support the student is receiving or has received (indicate service and year): Special Education 504 Mental health services ELL services After School Programs Other: State Assessment Scores Language Arts Math Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Discipline K Total ODRs Suspensions Health Concerns: Medications: Page 55

62 Social-Behavioral Concerns: Concerns Notes: Academic Concerns: Notes: Emotional Concerns: Notes: Operationally define behavior Where does it occur? When does it occur? How frequently does it occur? Hypothesized function Skill deficit Adult attention Peer attention Seeks tangible Seeks control Seeks stimulation Avoid adults Avoid peers Avoid task/activity Avoid situations Other: Targeted Intervention Function Quick Sort Increases opportunities for positive adult attention Increases opportunities for positive peer attention Promotes a positive, encouraging adult relationship Teaches replacement behaviors and/or skills Teaches problem solving Increases precorrection, prompts and structure Monitors risk factors Provides access to choice of alternatives/ activities Facilitates self monitoring Increases opportunity for stronger incentives/ positive reinforcement CHECK IN/ CHECK OUT SOCIAL/ ORGNIZATIONAL SKILLS GROUP MENTORING BEHAVIOR CONTRACT ALTERNATE LUNCH/ RECESS OTHER Page 56

63 STEP 5 MONITORING PROGRESS OF STUDENTS RECEIVING TIER II INTERVENTIONS Consistent progress monitoring is essential to successful implementation of Tier II interventions as it allows the Tier II team to obtain data for decision making and refinement of Tier II systems. Approximately 6 to 8 weeks are needed for successful completion of an intervention. As such, data should be collected on all students receiving Tier II interventions. The Tier II team should use the data to evaluate progress and make decisions. Metrics for Monitoring The metric used to monitor student progress should be determined before a student begins an intervention. Generally, Daily Progress Reports (DPRs) provide a flexible method of gathering and recording data on student progress. Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) may also be used to monitor progress concurrently or as a stand-alone measure. Students receiving mentoring support may receive CICO, SOSG, or another intervention concurrently. If students receiving mentoring support are not receiving a concurrent intervention, then a daily DPR is generally not necessary. A weekly or bimonthly DPR of grades, the student s attendance during a defined period of time, or ODRs may serve as better indicators of the student s engagement in school. DPRs may be tailored to fit the culture of the school. DPRs should be printed on two copy NCR paper to allow one copy to go home to the parent/guardian each day. Generally, Tier I universal expectations are used in designing the expectations for a DPR. Individualized DPRs may be used, but should be considered for students who have failed to respond and need modifications to the intervention in order to be successful. A 3 or 4 point system is recommended for DPRs. The student is then scored by the teacher or staff member based on their performance during different periods of time throughout the day for each universal behavior listed on the DPR. Points can then be tallied and it can be determined if a student met their daily goal. A score at or above 80% of the total points is generally considered a successful day. Goals for students should be based on an initial baseline of at least one week. Based on the baseline, a goal should be established that shows improvement, but allows for mistakes by the student. A general rule of thumb is that a student Page 57

64 should be able to meet a daily goal at least once in a two week period. If not, the goal is most likely set too high and should be modified. DPR results should then be graphed by the Behavioral Intervention Specialist. A link to an Excel template is provided in the resource section. The purpose of graphing DPRs is to establish a pattern for decision making. Below are examples of positive, questionable, and negative response graphs for DPRs. Page 58

65 As indicated in the above illustrations, Tier II teams should compare student progress to the goal line for the student. A trend line can be drawn to check if the student is making sufficient progress towards their goal. It is likely that students who score at 80% - 90% consistently on the DPR will be considered to have had a positive response to the intervention. Progress monitoring data should be collected daily and examined at least every two weeks. The Tier II team should establish decision making criteria for modifying or fading interventions. Page 59

66 Below are suggested guidelines for decision making: IF: A student is identified as needing Tier II supports and there is Tier I fidelity for the student, A student is demonstrating improvement toward the goal, A student is consistently reaching his/her goals, A student is consistently not reaching his/her goals, A student is consistently not reaching his/her goals and the Tier II supports were delivered with fidelity, A student is not making progress in spite of repeated Tier II interventions that are being delivered with fidelity, OR The student s behavior is escalating or dangerous, THEN: Identify appropriate Tier II supports for the student. Continue with the current Tier II support. Decide to maintain Tier II supports (if needed to remain successful in general education environment). OR Begin to fade Tier II supports gradually (e.g., frequency, duration, intensity, etc.). OR Move back to Tier I supports. Evaluate if the student was receiving the support with fidelity. OR Modify the Tier II supports to be more effective. Make adjustments to the interventions. OR Increase support or try a different Tier II intervention. Consider a TSS to develop an individualized plan OR Consider a recommendation for psychological assessment Fading Interventions Students may be faded from an intervention when they have shown sufficient progress and are meeting at least 80% of the total possible points on a daily basis for at least 4 weeks. Fading is intended not only to remove the intervention gradually, but also to establish self-monitoring by the student. Below is a flowchart for fading established by the Winfield R-IV School District. The flowchart is designed for fading from CICO but may be modified to fit other interventions. Page 60

67 Student has an average of 80% for 4 weeks. Fading From Check-In / Check-Out No Winfield Primary, Winfield R- IV School District Yes Begin Fading Student is selfmonitoring*. Is student continuing to stay at or above an 80% average? Yes Student is selfmonitoring*. Does student s response match teacher s response 80% of the time? Yes Continue CICO No No Continue training with self-monitoring *During self- monitoring, both the student and the teacher are completing a DPR. At the end of each subject the student and teacher still hold a conference to discuss what each other s rating was and why. If different, need to discuss difference, but know that the teacher s rating is what is counted. The goal of self- monitoring is to increase the student s sense of responsibility and ability to manage his/her own behavior without the need for redirection, prompting, and management by an adult figure. Teacher completes DPR four days, Student completes DPR one day CICO 4 days No Teacher completes DPR three days, Student completes DPR two days CICO 3 days Teacher completes DPR two days, Student completes DPR three days CICO 2 days Teacher completes DPR one day, Student completes DPR four days CICO 1 day Is student continuing to stay at or above an 80% average? Yes Continue fading No Return to self- Student completes DPR all week No CICO Is student continuing to stay at or above an 80% average? GRADUATION Yes Page 61

68 When implementing procedures for progress monitoring of Tier II interventions consider the following guidelines: Implementation Guidelines Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. Design generic DPR form for student using school universal expectations for behavior 2. Print DPR forms on two copy NCR paper to ensure a copy may be sent home to parent/guardian 3. Establish daily/weekly point targets for students 4. Collect DPRs and record data into Excel spreadsheet 5. Monitor progress of students towards goals at least bi-weekly 6. Follow established decision making rules for considering modifications or fading of support for student DPR samples can be found at Resources Milwaukee Public Schools Illinois PBIS Several Word document examples p%3a%2f%2fwww.psd150.org%2fcms%2flib2%2fil %2fcentricity%2fdomain%2f24%2fc ICO%2520Daily%2520Progress%2520Report%2520Samples.doc&ei=d4DSU-q- I8X_oQSVw4HgDA&usg=AFQjCNGWXSYkiMZjxIwws7hMeHqon4i53A DPR progress monitoring spreadsheet o Hawken, L., et al. (2005). The Behavior Education Program: A Check-In, Check-Out Intervention for Students at Risk. Video Disc file BEP Graphing_StudentTrackingProgram.xlsx o Positive Environments, Network of Trainers (PENT) Diana Browning Wright retrieved from Page 62

69 Washington Daily Progress Report Name 2 = Great Points received Date 1 = Almost Points possible Goal 0 = Try Again Daily Goal met? Yes No Goals: Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Period 7 1. Be Safe (Keep hands, feet and objects to self.) 2. Be Respectful (Use kind words and actions.) 3. Be Responsible (Be on task/follow directions.) 4. Homework Teacher Initials Comments: Parent Signature: Page 63

70 DPR with Escape Modifications DPR with Organizational Modifications Page 64

71 STEP 6 EVALUATING TIER II SYSTEMS Monitoring of Tier II systems is essential to ensure fidelity of implementation and identify areas for refinement. When interventions are not applied with fidelity, student behavior generally remains unaffected. Failure to consider fidelity of implementation when making decisions regarding student progress may mislead Tier II team decision making. Likewise, national SWPBIS assessment measures help to ensure the effective implementation of Tier II, as well as provide feedback for refinement and action planning. This resource section of this step describes briefly the assessment measures used in BCSD, their purpose, and timelines for their administration. The following measures were chosen as valid and reliable measures of Tier II implementation. Measures have been designed to be done quickly and efficiently with a minimal time commitment to the school team. When examining fidelity of implementation, consider the following guidelines: Implementation Guidelines Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 1. Ensure key features of interventions are defined including when it should occur and who should implement 2. Determine how monitoring will occur: Observation Self-monitoring Document analysis 3. Determine when monitoring should occur and by whom 4. Schedule BAT reviews periodically with Tier II team to reflect on Tier II systems and prepare for the I-SSET 5. Schedule SET and I-SSET review with Instructional Support Services 6. Ensure fidelity issues are addressed during Tier II team meetings Page 65

72 Resources Intervention Fidelity These resources are intended to provide assistance to schools in developing school based ways of determining intervention fidelity. Milwaukee Social Skills Group Fidelity Implementation Measure retrieved from: Milwaukee CICO Fidelity Implementation Measure retrieved from: Crone, D., Hawken, L., & Horner, R. (2010). Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program (2 nd Ed.). The Guilford Press, IL Book provided to all Principals and Behavioral Intervention Specialists containing resources for implementing CICO University of Minnesota (2012). Check & Connect: Implementing with Fidelity. University of Minnesota, MN. Implementation guide containing checklist for fidelity of implementation provided to Behavioral Intervention Specialists and Youth Services Specialists Page 66

73 Social Skills Academic Instructional Groups (SAIG) Fidelity Implementation Measure School Date Student Evaluation Question School Systems 1. Does the school employ a SAIG coordinator who job is to manage the SAIG with at least some release time per week allocated? 0 = no Coordinator, 1 = Coordinator(s) with no time, 2 = Coordinator(s) with time 2. Does an administrator serve on the Tier 2 team and review the SAIG data at least monthly? 0 = no, 1 = yes, but not consistently, 2 = yes 3. Has the SAIG system been taught/reviewed to staff on an annual basis? 0 = no, 2 = yes 4. Did the Tier 2 team use the SAIG data for decision making? 0 = no, 2 = yes 5. Was the data entered into Exceed at least once a week? 0 = no, 2 = yes Student Based 6. Did the student attend group weekly? 0 = no, 1 = some, 2 = yes 7. Did the student use the DPR daily? 0 = <50%, 1 = 51% - 80%, 2 = more than 80% 8. Did student receive reinforcement for meeting weekly goals? 0 = no, 2 = yes 9. Did student receive regular constructive feedback from teachers? 0 = no, 2 = yes 10. Did student receive feedback from a parent/guardian? 0 = no, 2 = yes 11. Did the student receive support within 2 weeks of the referral? 0 = no support, 1 = student is identified to receive services within two weeks, 2 = receives services within 2 weeks Data Source P=Product I=Interview O=Observation I P / I I P I P P P P P I Score (0-2) Adapted from Deanne A. Crone, Leanne S. Hawken, and Robert H. Horner (2010), Responding to Problem Behavior. Revised 4/27/2011 Page 67

74 SAIG Plan s Effectiveness Score Student has no referrals per month and has met his/her SAIG goal Student has no more that 1 referral per month and has met his/her SAIG goal Student has 2 referrals per month, but continues to attend SAIG Student has 2 referrals per month, but has been inconsistent with attending SAIG Student has more than 2 referrals and has been inconsistent with attending SAIG Student refuses SAIG or has frequent absences and is not meeting the goal Stars Fidelity Scoring Score Stars or less 0 Revised 4/27/2011 Page 68

75 Check-in/Check-out Fidelity Implementation Measure School Date Student Evaluation Question School Systems 1. Does the school employ a Check-in/Check-out coordinator who job is to manage the CICO with at least some release time per week allocated? 0 = no Coordinator, 1 = Coordinator(s) with no time, 2 = Coordinator(s) with time 2. Does an administrator serve on the Tier 2 team and review the CICO data at least monthly? 0 = no, 1 = yes, but not consistently, 2 = yes 3. Has the CICO system been taught/reviewed to staff on an annual basis? 0 = no, 2 = yes 4. Did the Tier 2 team use the CICO data for decision making? 0 = no, 2 = yes 5. Was the data entered into Exceed at least once a week? 0 = no, 2 = yes Student Based 6. Did the student check-in daily? 0 = 50%, 1 = 51% - 80%, 2 = more than 80% 7. Did the student check-out daily? 0 = 50%, 1 = 51% - 80%, 2 = more than 80% 8. Did student receive reinforcement for meeting daily goals? 0 = no, 2 = yes 9. Did student receive regular constructive feedback from teachers? 0 = no, 2 = yes 10. Did student receive feedback from a parent/guardian? 0 = no, 2 = yes 11. Did the student receive support within 2 weeks of the referral? 0 = no support, 1 = student is identified to receive services within two weeks, 2 = receives services within 2 weeks Data Source P=Product I=Interview O=Observation I P / I I P I P P P P P I Score (0-2) Adapted from Deanne A. Crone, Leanne S. Hawken, and Robert H. Horner (2010), Responding to Problem Behavior. Revised 1/24/2011 Page 69

76 Fidelity Scoring Score Stars or less 0 CICO Plan s Effectiveness Score Student has no referrals per month and has met his/her check-in/check-out goal Student has no more that 1 referral per month and has met his/her check-in/check-out goal Student has 2 referrals per month, but continues to check in and check out with the facilitator Student has 2 referrals per month, but has been inconsistent with checking-in and checking-out Student has more than 2 referrals and has been inconsistent with checking-in and checking-out Student refuses CICO or has frequent absences and is not meeting the goal Stars Revised 1/24/2011 Page 70

77 Resources National Fidelity Tools The Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) and Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SSET) are used to determine implementation within BCSD. The BAT is used as a rubric for Tier II teams in analyzing and reflecting on school-wide implementation of Tier II systems. Teams should use the rubric to rate their own implementation and as a benchmark for setting expectations and action planning. The I-SSET will be conducted in conjunction with the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) during the months of January, February, and March. The I-SSET is conducted by individuals from outside of the school-site in order to provide objective feedback. Information from the I-SSET can be used to: (1) Assess features in place (2) Determine annual goals (3) Evaluate on-going efforts (4) Design and revise procedures (5) Compare year to year efforts Page 71

78 Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) The Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) allows school teams to self-assess the implementation status of Tiers 2 (secondary, targeted) and 3 (tertiary, intensive) behavior support systems within their school. The BAT is based on factors drawn from the Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SSET), and is designed to answer three questions: Are the foundational (organizational) elements in place for implementing secondary and tertiary behavior support practices? 1. Is a Tier 2 support system in place? 2. Is a Tier 3 system in place? School teams can use the BAT to build an action plan to delineate next steps in the implementation process. If schools choose to use the BAT to assess progress over time, then scores on each area can be tracked on a year-to-year basis. School: District: State: Date of Completion: / / Team Leader/Coordinator: Team Members: INSTRUCTIONS: The BAT is to be completed by the team(s) involved with Tiers 2 and 3 behavior support, and reflects the consensus (or majority) of team members. Team members should first be trained in use of the BAT by someone familiar with the measure. The BAT can be completed by the team as a group or by each member independently. If completed independently, the team reconvenes to review scores on each item. Items in which there is disagreement are discussed and the team comes to consensus on the score. If there is not a team in a school focused on Tiers 2 and 3 supports, then the BAT should be completed by gathering the individuals with the most knowledge and involvement in supports at Tier 2 and Tier 3. Each item is rated 2 fully in place, a 1 partially in place, or a 0 not yet started. After completion of the BAT, use the Action Plan template to develop a timeline for moving forward on targeted and intensive interventions. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 72

79 A Tier 1: Implementation of School-wide PBS Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) 2-Fully in Place 1-Partially in Place 0-Not Yet Started Circle Appropriate Score 1. School-wide PBS, Tier 1/Universal intervention is in place as measured by scores on the SET, BoQ, TIC, or PIC. 2. Team members agree that school-wide PBS is in place and is implemented consistently by teachers and staff. 3. A data system is in place for documenting office discipline referrals that includes (a) problem behavior, (b) time of day, (c) location, (d) possible motivation, (e) others involved, and (f) administrative decision taken as a result of the problem behavior. Tier 2-3: Foundations 80%/80% on SET 70% on BoQ 80% on TIC or PIC Team members agree that school-wide PBS is in place and is implemented consistently by over 80% of all teachers and staff. The system includes all 6 features. Score greater than 40% on any of these measures Team members state that school-wide PBS is implemented consistently by 50-80% of teachers and staff The system includes 4-5 features. Score equal to or less than 40% on any of these measures. Team members state that school-wide PBS is implemented consistently by less than 50% of teachers and staff. The system includes 3 or fewer features or is not in place. B Commitment 2-Fully in Place 1-Partially in Place 0-Not Yet Started 4. There is crossover membership and/or communication that informs the Tier 1 team of the status of Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports. 5. A team/individual makes decisions about students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports. Tier 1 team is aware of the number of students, fidelity, and progress of students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports. A team/individual makes decisions about students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports (who should receive what support). Tier 1 team is aware of one or two components, but not all three. Decisions are made regarding Tier 2 and 3 supports but not formally or consistently. Tier 1 team is unaware of the number of students, fidelity, and progress of students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports. No team/individual is established to determine Tier 2 and Tier 3 support for students Circle Appropriate Score Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 2 Page 73

80 6. The number of students, program fidelity, and progress of students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports is reported to faculty. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) The number of students, One or two components program fidelity, and reported to faculty, or any progress of students is components reported less reported to faculty at least than quarterly. quarterly. No components reported to faculty. C Student Identification 2-Fully in place 1-Partially in place 0-Not yet started 7. The school uses a data-based process for identifying students who may need Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports. Screening ODRs Request for Assistance Nomination Progress Monitoring Other 8. All school staff have been trained in and know the process for requesting Tier 2 and Tier 3 support for students 9. Decisions about whether students get additional behavior support are made in a timely manner and staff are notified of decisions. At least 2 data sources are used to identify students for Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports at least twice a year. A documented process exists and staff are trained. Staff are notified of a decision within 10 days of making a referral. 10. Students receive support in a timely manner. Students begin receiving supports within 30 days of referral. 1 data source is used to identify students for Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports and/or data are used less than twice a year. A documented process exists but there is no staff training. Staff are notified of a decision, but not within 10 days. Students begin receiving supports, but not within 30 days. Data sources are rarely used to identify students for Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports. The process is informal or does not exist. Staff do not receive notification or receive it inconsistently. Students do not receive support or receive it inconsistently. D Monitoring and Evaluation 2-Fully in place 1-Partially in place 0-Not yet started 11. The teacher(s) directly involved with students receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports are notified about impact and changes to strategies. Teachers directly involved with Tier 2 and 3 supports are notified about changes to strategies immediately and the impact, weekly. Teachers directly involved with Tier 2 and 3 supports are notified about changes to strategies and impact less than weekly. Teachers directly involved with Tier 2 and 3 supports do not receive notification about impact and changes to strategies Circle Appropriate Score Circle Appropriate Score Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 3 Page 74

81 12. The primary family members of students receiving Tier 2 and 3 supports are notified about impact and changes to strategies Tier 2: Targeted Interventions Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) Family members are notified about changes to strategies immediately and the impact, weekly. Family members are notified about changes to strategies and impact less than weekly. Family members do not receive notification about impact and changes to strategies. E Tier 2: Support Systems 2-Fully in place 1-Partially in place 0-Not yet started 13. The administrator is updated about which students receive Tier 2 supports. The administrator is informed at least monthly about which students are receiving Tier 2 supports. 14. The Tier 2 team meets frequently. A team meets at least every 2 weeks. There is not a consistent way to provide this information, even if she/he is aware of the students on Tier 2 interventions. A team meets at least monthly. The administrator is not informed about which students are receiving Tier 2 supports. A team meets, but less than monthly, or a team does not meet Circle Appropriate Score The Tier 2 team is formally trained on practices and systems required for implementation of Tier 2 support. 16. Students receiving a Tier 2 strategy have full access to Tier 1 supports. 50% or more of members on Tier 2 team have received training on the interventions, the systems needed for implementation, and progress monitoring tools. Students have been taught expectations and rules and have opportunities to receive acknowledgements through a Tier 1 system that is in place throughout the entire school. Some, but less than 50%, of members on the Tier 2 team received training on the interventions, the systems needed for implementation, and progress monitoring tools. Students are taught expectations and rules or have had opportunity to receive acknowledgements or Tier 1 is not available in all settings. Members on the Tier 2 team do not receive training on the interventions, the systems needed for implementation, and progress monitoring tools. Students have not been taught expectations and rules or received acknowledgements Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 4 Page 75

82 17. Tier 2 strategies are evaluated and updated regularly. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) Strategies are evaluated at Strategies are evaluated, least once each year, but less than annually, or reviewed, and updated or they are not reviewed modified as needed, based and/or updated. on team discussion. Strategies are not reviewed or evaluated F Main Tier 2 Strategy Implementation Items (gray shading) are to be completed for the most common Tier 2 strategy in use at your school. **The Tier 2/Targeted Intervention most often used in my school is. (fill in line) 18. There are personnel identified to coordinate and deliver the Tier 2 strategy. 19. The Tier 2 strategy is consistent with school-wide expectations. 20. The Tier 2 strategy is established within the school and does not need unique development for each participating student. 2-Fully in place 1-Partially in place 0-Not yet started There is an adequate number of staff and those staff members have sufficient time to coordinate and deliver this intervention with fidelity. The Tier 2 strategy includes or references the schoolwide expectations. The Tier 2 strategy is in place and can be applied to groups of students consistently. The level of staffing and time available interferes with the ability to coordinate and deliver this intervention with fidelity and to all students who would benefit. The Tier 2 strategy does not specifically include or reference the school-wide expectations but they are not inconsistent. Parts of the Tier 2 strategy are in place OR it requires significant start-up time for each student. There is not adequate staff or sufficient time to coordinate and deliver this intervention with fidelity. The Tier 2 strategy is inconsistent with schoolwide expectations. The Tier 2 strategy is not established within the school or is unique for most students receiving the intervention. Circle Appropriate Score The Tier 2 strategy includes a formal process for teaching appropriate behaviors. In this strategy, there is a documented formal process for teaching appropriate behaviors. In this strategy, a formal process for teaching appropriate behaviors is not uniformly applied to all students. In this strategy, there is no formal process for teaching appropriate behaviors Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 5 Page 76

83 22. The Tier 2 strategy includes regular opportunities for students to perform appropriate behaviors. 23. The Tier 2 strategy uses accurate and objective data to adapt, modify, and improve support. 24. The Tier 2 strategy includes frequent communication with the family. 25. The Tier 2 strategy has written materials that describe the core features, functions, and systems of the strategy. 26. The Tier 2 strategy includes orientation material and procedures for the staff, substitutes, families and volunteers. 27. The Tier 2 strategy is efficient. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) The strategy provides regular opportunities for students to perform appropriate behaviors. The strategy uses accurate and objective data to adapt, modify, and improve support. The strategy includes weekly communication with the family. Written materials exist to describe the core features, functions, and systems of the strategy. Orientation materials and procedures exist for the staff, substitutes, families and volunteers. Requires no more than 10 minutes per instructional staff person, per day. The strategy provides limited opportunities for students to perform appropriate behaviors. The strategy uses data, even if less than adequate, to adapt, modify, and improve support. The strategy includes less than weekly communication with the family. Written materials exist but do not describe all of the core features, functions, and systems of the strategy. Orientation materials and procedures exist, but not for all four groups. Requires more than 10 minutes per instructional staff person, per day. The strategy provides no opportunities for students to perform appropriate behaviors. The strategy does not use any data to adapt, modify, and improve support. The strategy includes no process for communication with the family. Written materials do not exist to describe the core features, functions, and systems of the strategy. Orientation materials and procedures do not exist. There are no data indicating how long the strategy takes per instructional staff person, per day Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 6 Page 77

84 Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) G Main Tier 2: Strategy Monitoring and Evaluation 2-Fully in Place 1-Partially in Place 0-Not Yet Started 28. An information system is used to monitor the impact of the Tier 2 strategy. 29. There are documented decision rules to decide which students access the strategy and the process is implemented consistently. 30. Documented decision rules are used to monitor, modify, or discontinue student involvement in the Tier 2 strategy. A data-based system is in place that allows for daily collection of behavior ratings and weekly monitoring of behaviors. There are documented decision rules to decide which students access the strategy and the process is implemented consistently. Documented decision rules determine how the strategy affects a student and include (a) monitoring, (b) modifying, and (c) ending a strategy. Behavior ratings are collected less frequent than daily or are monitored less than weekly. There are documented decision rules to decide which students access the strategy, but they are not used or are used inconsistently. Documented decision rules may include (a) monitoring, (b) modifying, and (c) ending a strategy, but not all three. There is no system for monitoring student progress for this Tier 2 strategy. There are no decision rules to determine how students access the Tier 2 strategy There are no decision rules to determine how a strategy affects a student. Circle Appropriate Score Fidelity of the Tier 2 strategy is assessed. The Tier 2 strategy is evaluated at least once a year to ensure it is implemented as designed. The Tier 2 strategy is evaluated, but less than annually. The Tier 2 strategy is not evaluated to confirm that it is implemented as designed Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 7 Page 78

85 Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) H Tier 3: Intensive Support Systems 2-Fully in Place 1-Partially in Place 0-Not Yet Started Circle Appropriate Score 32. A team builds and implements Tier 3 behavior support plans. 33. The Tier 3 support team includes individuals with knowledge about the school systems, the student, and behavioral theory (e.g., student, teacher, family member, administrator, behavior specialist, advocates). 34. A person is identified to coordinate Tier 3 supports. 35. An administrator is a member of the Tier 3 implementation team. 36. Tier 3 team members have sufficient formal training in implementation of the Tier 3 support system. There is a formal team that is responsible for building and implementing Tier 3 behavior support plans. Support team includes members that represent expertise in all 3 areas: school systems, student, and behavioral theory. A coordinator with behavioral expertise and adequate FTE is identified. An administrator participates in most activities of the Tier 3 team. Tier 3 team members have sufficient training and support to implement Tier 3 supports with fidelity. A group of staff get together informally or inconsistently to build and implement Tier 3 behavior support plans. Support team includes members that represent expertise in only 2 of the 3 areas: school systems, student, and behavioral theory. A coordinator is identified, but does not have behavioral expertise or is lacking dedicated FTE. An administrator participates in Tier 3 team activities occasionally or inconsistently. Tier 3 team members have limited training and support to implement Tier 3 supports with fidelity. There is no team responsible for Tier 3 behavior support plans. Support team does not include members that represent any of these areas; OR, the team includes representation from only 1 area. No coordinator is identified. An administrator does not participate in Tier 3 team activities. Tier 3 team members have little to no training and support to implement Tier 3 supports with fidelity Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 8 Page 79

86 37. The Tier 3 team receives annual staff development in Tier 3 procedures. 38. The team has an efficient and accurate data system for monitoring Tier 3 impact. 39. The team reviews the Tier 3 process and considers modifications, as needed. 40. The school has personnel to implement Tier 3 supports. 41. The school facilitates involvement of family members of students receiving Tier 3 supports. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) At least 50% of the team Fewer than 50% of team receives staff development receives staff development related to Tier 3 procedures related to Tier 3 every year. procedures, or not every year, or there is not a formal plan to provide There is a system to collect data daily and graphically monitor/analyze (at least bimonthly) student behaviors for each student receiving Tier 3 support. The team reviews the impact of Tier 3 process each year, and modifies the process as needed. Adequate staff is available to support students identified as needing Tier 3 support. The school makes considerable efforts to encourage family participation in assessment, intervention development and implementation, and progress monitoring. annual training. There is no system to collect student-behavior data daily for graphical analysis, but there are forms and other tools available. The team reviews the impact of Tier 3, but not each year OR the team does not evaluate the process for needed modifications. The staff available to support Tier 3 is inadequate, but the school makes do. The school makes some efforts to encourage family participation in assessment, intervention development and implementation, and progress monitoring. The team does not receive any staff development related to Tier 3 procedures. A data-based system is not available, and there are no forms or tools available to collect student behavior data. The team does not review the Tier 3 process. The school s ability to provide Tier 3 support is compromised due to inadequate personnel levels. The school makes minimal efforts to encourage family participation in assessment, intervention development and implementation, and progress monitoring Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 9 Page 80

87 42. All faculty and staff are oriented to Tier 3 support implementation. 43. Students receiving Tier 3 support also have access to Tier 1 and/or Tier 2 supports. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) There is a specific process for providing all faculty and staff with orientation to Tier 3 support process, and all staff are aware of their roles in Tier 3 supports. All students accessing Tier 3 have received ongoing lessons on expectations, have had access to the reward system, and have had Tier 2 supports when appropriate. The process for providing all faculty and staff with Tier 3 orientation is unclear or not all staff are aware of their roles in Tier 3 supports. Some students accessing Tier 3 have received ongoing lessons on expectations, have had access to the reward system, and have had Tier 2 supports when appropriate. There is not a process for providing all faculty and staff with orientation to Tier 3 support process. Most students accessing Tier 3 have not accessed Tier 1 or Tier 2 supports. I Tier 3: Assessment and Plan Development 2-Fully in Place 1-Partially in Place 0-Not Yet Started 44. The problem behaviors are operationally defined. 45. The problem statements (summary statement) define three components: antecedent(s), behavior(s), and consequence(s). 46. Behavior intervention plans (BIPs) are developed by a team of individuals with documented knowledge about (a) the school context, (b) the student, and (c) behavioral theory. The problem behaviors for all FBAs are measureable and observable. Summary statements from the FBAs include all three components. All BIPs are developed by teams with expertise in all 3 areas: school systems, student, and behavioral theory. The problem behaviors for some FBAs are measureable and observable. Summary statements from the FBAs include 2 but not all 3 components; OR, the components are included inconsistently. Some BIPs are developed by teams with expertise in all 3 areas; OR, BIPs are developed by teams with expertise in 2 of the 3 areas: school systems, student, and behavioral theory. The problem behaviors for FBAs are neither measureable nor observable. Summary statements from the FBAs are not developed. BIPs are developed by teams without expertise in these areas OR with expertise only 1 area Circle Appropriate Score Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 10 Page 81

88 47. The Tier 3 approach includes procedures that allow a continuum of strategies to match student needs (e.g. single-element interventions, multicomponent interventions, wrap around, life-style enhancement, medical supports). 48. Behavior intervention plans (BIPs) include a problem statement (summary statement) with (a) operational definition of problem behavior(s), (b) antecedent events, and (c) consequences that maintain the problem behavior. 49. Based on an FBA, the BIPs include strategies for preventing problem behavior, if appropriate. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) A range of Tier 3 supports The school has one Tier 3 are available for students, process that is applied to ranging from simple to all students receiving Tier complex. 3 supports. Summary statements from the FBAs include all three components for all behavior support plans. Over 80% of BIPs include prevention strategies. Summary statements from the FBAs include 2 but not all 3 components; OR, the components are included inconsistently in behavior support plans. Over 50% of BIPs include prevention strategies. The school lacks any adequate system of support for students needing Tier 3 supports. Summary statements from the FBAs are not developed for behavior support plans. Less than 50% of BIPs include prevention strategies Based on an FBA, the BIPs include strategies for minimizing reward of problem behavior, if appropriate. Over 80% of BIPs include strategies to minimize rewards for problem behavior. Over 50% of BIPs include strategies to minimize rewards for problem behavior. Less than 50% of BIPs include strategies to minimize rewards for problem behavior Based on an FBA, the BIPs include strategies for rewarding appropriate behavior, if appropriate. Over 80% of BIPs include reward strategies. Over 50% of BIPs include reward strategies. Less than 50% of BIPs include reward strategies Based on an FBA, the BIPs include strategies for ensuring physical safety, if appropriate. Over 80% of BIPs include strategies for ensuring safety. Over 50% of BIPs include strategies for ensuring safety. Less than 50% of BIPs include strategies for ensuring safety Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 11 Page 82

89 53. BIPs include a formal action plan for developing, teaching, coaching, and supporting the core elements of the Tier 3 strategies. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) Over 80% of BIPs include a documented action plan. Over 50% of BIPs include a documented action plan. Less than 50% of BIPs include documented action plans J Tier 3: Monitoring and Evaluation 2-Fully in Place 1-Partially in Place 0-Not Yet Started 54. The team formally progress monitors impact of each Tier 3 support plan. 55. Data collected on student behavior are used to assess intervention effects and make modifications as needed. 56. Intervention plans include a process for monitoring fidelity of implementation. Data are collected daily and graphed for analysis (at least twice per month) for each student receiving Tier 3 support. Data collected on student behavior are used to assess intervention effects and make modifications as needed and this occurs at least every other week. Intervention plans contain a process for monitoring how well an intervention is implemented at least every 2 weeks. Data are collected and analyzed twice per month for some students or data are collected and analyzed but less than twice per month. Data are used to monitor intervention effects and modify interventions but this occurs less often than every two weeks for some or all students Intervention plans contain a process for monitoring how well an intervention is implemented, but at intervals greater than every 2 weeks, OR the process is inconsistent. A data-based system is not used to collect student behavior data or student behavior data are collected/monitored infrequently (once per month or less). Data are not used to assess intervention effects. There is no process in the intervention plan for monitoring how well the intervention is implemented. Circle Appropriate Score Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 12 Page 83

90 Additional Tier 2 Strategy Implementation Another Tier 2/Targeted Intervention used in my school is. (fill in line) 18. There are personnel identified to coordinate and deliver the Tier 2 strategy. 19. The Tier 2 strategy is consistent with school-wide expectations. 20. The Tier 2 strategy is established within the school and does not need unique development for each participating student. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) Items (gray shading) may be repeated for the other Tier 2 strategies in use at your school for evaluation and planning purposes. However, only the scores associated with the most commonly used Tier 2 strategy will be accounted in your Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) score.. 2-Fully in place 1-Partially in place 0-Not yet started There is an adequate number of staff and those staff members have sufficient time to coordinate and deliver this intervention with fidelity. The Tier 2 strategy includes or references the schoolwide expectations. The Tier 2 strategy is in place and can be applied to groups of students consistently. The level of staffing and time available interferes with the ability to coordinate and deliver this intervention with fidelity and to all students who would benefit. The Tier 2 strategy does not specifically include or reference the school-wide expectations but they are not inconsistent. Parts of the Tier 2 strategy are in place OR it requires significant start-up time for each student. There is not adequate staff or sufficient time to coordinate and deliver this intervention with fidelity. The Tier 2 strategy is inconsistent with schoolwide expectations. The Tier 2 strategy is not established within the school or is unique for most students receiving the intervention. Circle Appropriate Score The Tier 2 strategy includes a formal process for teaching appropriate behaviors. In this strategy, there is a documented formal process for teaching appropriate behaviors. In this strategy, a formal process for teaching appropriate behaviors is not uniformly applied to all students. In this strategy, there is no formal process for teaching appropriate behaviors The Tier 2 strategy includes regular opportunities for students to perform appropriate behaviors. The strategy provides regular opportunities for students to perform appropriate behaviors. The strategy provides limited opportunities for students to perform appropriate behaviors. The strategy provides no opportunities for students to perform appropriate behaviors Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 13 Page 84

91 23. The Tier 2 strategy uses accurate and objective data to adapt, modify, and improve support. 24. The Tier 2 strategy includes frequent communication with the family. 25. The Tier 2 strategy has written materials that describe the core features, functions, and systems of the strategy. 26. The Tier 2 strategy includes orientation material and procedures for the staff, substitutes, families and volunteers. 27. The Tier 2 strategy is efficient. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) The strategy uses accurate The strategy uses data, and objective data to adapt, even if less than adequate, modify, and improve to adapt, modify, and support. improve support. The strategy includes weekly communication with the family. Written materials exist to describe the core features, functions, and systems of the strategy. Orientation materials and procedures exist for the staff, substitutes, families and volunteers. Requires no more than 10 minutes per instructional staff person, per day. The strategy includes less than weekly communication with the family. Written materials exist but do not describe all of the core features, functions, and systems of the strategy. Orientation materials and procedures exist, but not for all four groups. Requires more than 10 minutes per instructional staff person, per day. The strategy does not use any data to adapt, modify, and improve support. The strategy includes no process for communication with the family. Written materials do not exist to describe the core features, functions, and systems of the strategy. Orientation materials and procedures do not exist. There are no data indicating how long the strategy takes per instructional staff person, per day Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 14 Page 85

92 Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) Additional Tier 2: Strategy Monitoring and Evaluation 2-Fully in Place 1-Partially in Place 0-Not Yet Started 28. An information system is used to monitor the impact of the Tier 2 strategy. 29. There are documented decision rules to decide which students access the strategy and the process is implemented consistently. 30. Documented decision rules are used to monitor, modify, or discontinue student involvement in the Tier 2 strategy. A data-based system is in place that allows for daily collection of behavior ratings and weekly monitoring of behaviors. There are documented decision rules to decide which students access the strategy and the process is implemented consistently. Documented decision rules determine how the strategy affects a student and include (a) monitoring, (b) modifying, and (c) ending a strategy. 31. Fidelity of the Tier 2 strategy is assessed. The Tier 2 strategy is evaluated at least once a year to ensure it is implemented as designed. Behavior ratings are collected less frequent than daily or are monitored less than weekly. There are documented decision rules to decide which students access the strategy, but they are not used or are used inconsistently. Documented decision rules may include (a) monitoring, (b) modifying, and (c) ending a strategy, but not all three. The Tier 2 strategy is evaluated, but less than annually. There is no system for monitoring student progress for this Tier 2 strategy. There are no decision rules to determine how students access the Tier 2 strategy There are no decision rules to determine how a strategy affects a student or decision rules include exist for two or fewer of (a) monitoring, (b) modifying, and (c) ending a strategy. The Tier 2 strategy is not evaluated to confirm that it is implemented as designed. Circle Appropriate Score Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 15 Page 86

93 Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) Scoring Summary 1. BAT results are summarized as a percent of features implemented score for each of the three parts 2. Calculate a percent implemented for each feature area a. Use the summary score template to record the total number of points for each scale and subscale. b. Convert each subscale to a percent implemented score by dividing the total points received by the total possible points for that feature area. 3. For each of the three scales, calculate the percent by: i. Total the percentages for the subscales 1. Divide the total percent received by the total number of subscales 2. Part I has four feature areas 3. Part II has three feature areas 4. Part III has three feature areas Feature Area Implementation Scores Foundations Tier II Tier III A /6 = % E /10 = % H /24 = % B /6 = % F /20 = % I /20 = % C /8 = % G /8 = % J /6 = % D /4 = % Summary Score for each BAT Part Total % s & divide by 4 Foundations: Total % s & divide by 3 Tier II: Total % s & divide by 3 Tier III: Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 16 Page 87

94 Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers (BAT) Share Summary Scores 1. Create two graphs a. A graph with the percent implemented for each of the scales (Foundations, Tier II, Tier III) b. A graph with the percent implemented for each of the Subscales c. Prepare a brief written explanation of the data focusing on the things that the school is doing well and have in place as well as the areas where some revisions may strengthen the existing procedure(s). d. Ideally, share the information with the team when they meet to review the status and Action Plan for the future. 2. You can create graphs to monitor progress over time, as is shown below. Benchmarks for Advanced Tiers; May 2011 Anderson, Childs, Kincaid, Horner, George, Todd, Sampson, & Spaulding Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon & University of South Florida Page 17 Page 88

95 Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool Version 2.8 Anderson, C.M., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A.W., Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., and Sampson, N.K. Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Contents: 1. Overview of ISSET -A description of the ISSET, outcomes produced, and implementation 2. Data collection protocol -Stipulation of the four steps involved in completing the ISSET; scheduling the assessment, conducting interviews, reviewing permanent products, and scoring the evaluation questions 3. ISSET interview -Interview questions for (a) the school administrator, (b) the behavior support team leader, and (c) five randomly selected staff members. 4. ISSET Scoring Guide -Instrument used to summarize information gleaned from the review of permanent products and the ISSET interview. The scoring matrix also contains a glossary of terms used in the ISSET and links interview questions to each ISSET evaluation item. Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 89 1

96 Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (ISSET) Overview The Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (ISSET) is a research tool designed to assess the implementation status of secondary (targeted) and tertiary (intensive) systems within a school. The ISSET consists of 35 items and is divided into three parts: foundations, targeted interventions, and individualized interventions. Questions in each of these parts are grouped into feature areas (e.g., commitment, implementation, assessment, etc.). A summary score is obtained for each of the three parts of the ISSET. The table below depicts the three parts of the ISSET and corresponding feature areas. A sample graph summarizes the percent of features implemented for each of three parts. Each part has 2, 3, or 4 feature areas. Part I: Foundations A. Commitment B. Team Based Planning C. Student Identification D. Monitoring and Evaluation Part II: Targeted Interventions E. Implementation F. Evaluation and Monitoring Part III: Intensive Individualized Interventions G. Assessment H. Implementation I. Evaluation and Monitoring The ISSET is conducted by an external evaluator and takes approximately two to three hours to complete. Two data sources are used to score the ISSET: interviews and a review of permanent products/documented procedures. Interviews involve a) an administrator (approximately 15 minutes), b) behavior support team leader (approximately 30 minutes), and c) five staff members for 1 minute each. The permanent product review requires the review of multiple documents outlining the procedures for interventions that provide students with additional social support. The permanent products might include: Documentation of the implementation status of school wide PBS, Meeting minutes for any team concentrating on student behavior, Description of targeted interventions that are available to students, At least two and up to five functional behavior assessments and behavior support plans Behavior Support Team Notebook and/or Procedures Manual Orientation/Training material for staff and volunteers on targeted interventions and/or Staff Handbook Job description for BST Leader showing FTE allocation for coordinating the targeted intervention Description of process for working with families or notification letter Decision rules for monitoring, modifying, or discontinuing the targeted intervention ODR Form For a full sequence of activities required for completing the ISSET efficiently, refer to the ISSET Data Collection Protocol. Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 90 2

97 ISSET Data Collection Protocol Completing the ISSET requires a sequence of four activities: 1) interviews, 2) permanent product review, scoring, and 3) summarizing the data. Begin data collection by conducting the ISSET interviews. At the end of the interviews, ask for the specified permanent products. Nineteen of the thirty-five questions require a review of permanent products. To increase efficiency gather permanent products prior to the ISSET data collector s visit. This requires an administrator and a behavior support team leader to gather documents before the ISSET administration date. 1. Schedule the ISSET a. Work around administrator and behavior support team leader availability b. Explain the written materials that you will want to review c. Determine steps for making the materials available when you arrive for interviews. 2. Conduct Interviews a. Administrator b. Behavior Support Team Leader c. Five Staff Members 3. Review Permanent Products a. Gathering materials b. Use materials for answering the ISSET evaluation questions 4. Complete the ISSET Scoring Guide a. Use completed interview questions and available permanent products to score each evaluation question as defined on the Scoring and Interview Matrix b. Use the data sources (completed interviews/permanent products) that are identified for each evaluation question when determining the score for each question Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 91 3

98 ISSET Interviews Introduction of ISSET to Administrator and Behavior Support Team Leader/PBS Coach Provide an overview of the ISSET and, if relevant {i.e. the school has used the SET}, of the difference between the SET and the ISSET. The SET is the School wide Evaluation Tool that measures the implementation status of SWPBS. The ISSET is the Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool that measures the implementation status of programs for individual students The ISSET is organized in three parts o foundations needed for individual student systems o targeted or secondary interventions used for groups of students, and o intensive individualized student support. A targeted intervention is defined as an intervention designed for students who are not responding to universal interventions. These interventions are implemented in a similar manner for all students receiving it. Eligible students might need additional social, academic, and/or organizational support. An intensive individual intervention is defined as an intervention for students who need individualized behavior support. This conversation will focus on the individual student support systems in your school. Individual student support systems include targeted and individualized interventions that are available for students who need more support than the SW or Universal system provides. What questions do you have? Permanent Products to Collect and Review Before ending the Administrator interview ask to review the following permanent products. Collect those products and then ask for any remaining materials from the Behavior Support Team Leader. Documentation Permanent Products to Collect and Review Possible Data Sources ISSET Question Status of SWPBS implementation SET, TIC, BOQ A2 ODR form categories ODR Form C2 Documentation showing how often the BST meets BST meeting minutes B2 Information showing that staff members and parents of students on targeted/intensive interventions are notified and kept current of their child s progress Description of most commonly used targeted intervention Orientation and training materials for staff, volunteers, substitutes and families on targeted intervention Job description showing FTE allocation for coordinating the targeted intervention Decision rules for monitoring, modifying, or discontinuing the targeted intervention Functional Behavior Assessments and Behavior Support Plans Description of process for working with family or notification letter Procedures manual, BST notebook, staff handbook Staff handbook, Training or orientation materials Coordinator job description Decision-making matrix Student Files D4, D5 E1 E2 E3 F1 G 1-2, H 1-2 & 4-6, I 1-2. Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 92 4

99 School Date of Completion / / ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ISSET Interview Questions (ISSET Evaluation Question information) First let s talk about your team. 1) Do you have a team of two or more people at your school that receives requests for assistance, develops support plans and monitors intervention results? (B1) Yes No if no, skip to question 2 How often does this team meet? (B2) How often are you able to attend those meetings? (A1) (0= 0-24%, 1= 25%-49% of meetings, 2= 50% or more) 2) Is there someone identified as the coordinator of function-based support for all the students in your school? (A4) Yes No If yes, is that person on your school staff? Yes No If yes, who is it? 3) Is there a person(s) on, or available to, the school behavior support team who is trained to conduct functional behavioral assessments and lead a team in the use of functional behavioral assessment information to develop behavior support plans? (A5) Yes No 4) Is the number of students receiving targeted or intensive interventions and their overall progress reported to faculty? (D3) Yes No If yes, how often? Before ending the administrator interview check the list of permanent products on page 4 and collect and/or review any that he/she has available. Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 93 5

100 ISSET Interview Questions (ISSET Evaluation Question information) BEHAVIOR SUPPORT TEAM LEADER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Repeat the introduction if needed. Let s talk about your Behavior Support Team and the processes associated with the team. 1) How many people are on the team and what are their roles in your school? 2) Is there a process for requesting assistance from the team for a student that may need extra behavior support? (C3) Yes No If yes, what is the process? (Get copy of Request for Assistance forms) 3) Have at least 4 of 5 of the most recent requests for assistance received support (meeting held or had an FBA conducted/started and/or intervention planned) within 10 school days of the request? (C4) Yes No 4) Do any BST team members attend annual professional development training in targeted and intensive interventions? (B3) Yes No If so, how many? 5) When the team meets to complete an FBA, does the team include individuals with knowledge about: The student? Yes No The setting in which the problem behavior usually occurs? Yes No An understanding of functional behavior assessment and building behavior support plans linked to the functional behavior assessment? (G3) Yes No What about when the team meets to complete a BSP, does the team include individuals with knowledge about: The student? Yes No The setting in which the problem behavior usually occurs? Yes No An understanding of functional behavior assessment and building behavior support plans linked to the functional behavior assessment? (H3) Yes No Now let s talk about Targeted and Intensive Interventions: A targeted intervention is defined as an intervention designed for students who are not responding to universal interventions. These interventions are implemented in a similar manner for all students receiving it. Eligible students might need additional social, academic, and/or organizational support. An intensive individual intervention is defined as an intervention for students who need individualized behavior support. 6) Does your school have any targeted interventions available to students who might need them? (E1) Yes No If yes, what are they? Do you have anything written down that describes these interventions? (If no, skip targeted interventions questions 7, 8, 18-21) Yes No Which one is most commonly used? (When referring to the school s targeted intervention for the remainder of the interview, use the name provided by the BST Leader.) Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 94 6

101 7) In reference to (the most commonly used targeted intervention) (E1) (Get written information about this intervention to score for documentation.) a. Is the intervention organized around SW expectations or SW academic goals? Yes No b. Is the intervention available for students to enter at any time? Yes No c. When students are identified for the intervention do they begin the intervention within 3 school days of determination? Yes No d. Do student assessment/progress data prompt the need for modification? Yes No e. Does the intervention include structured prompts for what to do during the day (relevant situations)? Yes No f. Do students on the intervention receive positive feedback from staff on a daily basis? Yes No g. Does the intervention include a weekly check-in with the student s family? Yes No h. Are orientation materials available for students entering the intervention? Yes No i. Are orientation materials available for staff/substitutes/volunteers that have students using the intervention? Yes No j. Do students using the intervention have daily opportunities to use their new skills? Yes No If yes, tell me about that process. Give me an example. 8) Who manages, coordinates and monitors the (most commonly used targeted intervention, their program name)? (E3) Does this person have formally allocated time apart from their other job responsibilities for this coordination? Yes No Is that documented in their job description? Yes No If yes, ask to see the job description. (If yes, ask for a copy) 9) Are office discipline referral data reviewed and used to identify students who currently are not receiving an intervention but who might benefit from a targeted or intensive intervention? (C1) Yes No If yes, how often? 10) Do you have a process for determining if a student begins a targeted intervention? (C5) Yes No If yes, tell me about the process. How about a process for determining if a student begins an intensive intervention? Yes No If yes, tell me about the process. 11) Do you monitor the outcomes for students receiving targeted or intensive behavior support? (D1) Yes No If yes, how often? Is that documented somewhere? Yes No (If yes, ask to review) 12) If a behavior support plan focuses on a problem behavior that places a student or others at physical risk, does the team have a strategy for identifying risk and implementing a safety plan if needed? (H6) Yes No (see BSPs for documentation) 13) Does a team (school-wide or BST) review data across all students across the school (e.g., ODR patterns, formative evaluation) to determine whether the school needs to develop or modify their existing targeted and intensive interventions? (D2) Yes No If yes, how often? Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 95 7

102 14) Does the school-wide team monitor the number of students on targeted and/or individual supports? (A3) Yes No If yes, how often? 15) Once it has been determined that a student needs targeted and intensive support, is there a process for notifying and including family members? (D5) Yes No If yes, is the process written down? Once an intervention has been implemented, do parents continue to receive information about their child s progress? Yes No 16) Do you notify staff members involved with those students? (D4) Yes No If yes, is the process written down? Yes No Once an intervention has been implemented, does staff continue to receive information about their student s progress? Yes No 17) How are decisions made about how to monitor and when to modify or discontinue a targeted intervention? (F1) Are there written decision rules or a process for how this happens? Yes No (ask to review them) 18) How much time does the (most commonly used targeted intervention) require per day for instructional staff to implement/monitor (this refers to instructional staff who implement the program with students during the school day)? (E4) 19) How do you train or orient staff, volunteers, substitutes, students and families about the (most commonly used targeted intervention)? (E2) Do you have anything written down that describes this orientation or training? (E2) Yes No (ask to review it) 20) Does the team collect and review data at least once a year to evaluate that the (most commonly used targeted intervention) is being implemented as planned (with fidelity)? (F2) Yes No Before ending the Behavior Support Team Leader interview check the list of permanent products on page 4 and collect and/or review any that he/she has available. STAFF MEMBER INTERVIEW QUESTION Ask 5 randomly selected staff members the following question to answer ISSET question C3 To determine staff member agreement, use the Behavior Support Team Leader Interview Question #2 Give brief explanation of who you are and what you are doing: Hi, my name is and I work with and am conducting an assessment of the individual student systems in the school and would like to ask you a question. Staff Member Total Agrees 1. What is the process used to request assistance for an individual student needing extra behavior support? Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 96 8

103 School (full name) Date of Completion / / District (full name) State Pre Post Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (ISSET) Scoring Guide Feature Evaluation Question Part I: Foundations Data Source P=product I=interview Glossary Corresponding Interview Question Score: 0-2 A. Commitment 1. Does the administrator regularly attend meetings focused on targeted or intensive interventions in the school? 0= 0-24%, 1= 25%-49% of meetings, 2= 50% or more Administrator interview Other I Team (meetings): At least two people who meet regarding students receiving targeted or intensive supports (same two people). A targeted intervention is defined as an intervention designed for students who are not responding to universal interventions. These interventions are implemented in a similar manner for all students receiving it. Eligible students might need additional social, academic, and/or organizational support. How often are you able to attend those meetings? An intensive individual intervention is defined as an intervention for students who need individualized behavior support. 2. Do summary scores on an assessment of fidelity of the universal level of SWPBS (e.g., SET, TIC, BoQ) indicate that the universal level is in place and is implemented with fidelity? SET, TIC, BOQ or equivalent measure. Other P SET: School-wide Evaluation Tool TIC: Team Implementation Checklist BoQ: Benchmarks of Quality SET & TIC 0= 0%-49%, 1= 50%-79%, 2= 80%-100% BoQ 0= 0%-39%, 1= 40%-69%, 2= 70%-100% Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 97 9

104 Feature Evaluation Question Part I: Foundations Data Source P=product I=interview Glossary Corresponding Interview Question Score: Does the BST Leader report that the school-wide team monitors the number of students receiving targeted and/or intensive supports on at least a monthly basis? 0= no, 1= yes, but less than monthly, 2= yes Behavior support team leader interview I SWPBS Team: The team that monitors implementation of the universal level of school-wide PBS. BST: Behavior team that meets regarding students receiving targeted or intensive supports. Does the school-wide team monitor the number of students on targeted and/or individual supports? Yes No If yes, how often? 4. Can the administrator identify a person(s) who is coordinating targeted and intensive interventions across all students in the school? (0= no, 1= identified, but works outside of the school, 2= identified and on school staff) Administrator interview Other I Coordinating: Summarizing outcomes graphically and reviewing progress at least every other week and making databased decisions about student progress. Works outside the school: An itinerant position not in the school full-time. Is there someone identified as the coordinator of function-based support for all the students in your school? (Yes No If yes, is that person on your school staff? Yes No If yes, who is it? 5. Is there a person(s) on, or available to, the school behavior support team who is trained to conduct functional behavioral assessments and lead a team in use of functional behavioral assessment information to develop behavior support plans? (0=no, 2= yes) Administrator interview Other I Is there a person(s) on, or available to, the school behavior support team who is trained to conduct functional behavioral assessments and lead a team in the use of functional behavioral assessment information to develop behavior support plans? Yes No B. Team Based Planning 1. Is there a team that receives requests for behavioral assistance, monitors behavior support plans, and monitors intervention results? (0= no, 2= yes) 2. Do meeting minutes/meeting schedule reflect that the behavior support team meets at least monthly? (0= no, 2= yes) Administrator interview Other Behavior support team meeting minutes Other I P Team (meetings): At least two people who meet regarding students receiving targeted or intensive supports (same two people). Do you have a team of two or more people at your school that receives requests for assistance, develops support plans and monitors intervention results? Yes No How often does this team meet? Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 98 10

105 Feature Evaluation Question Part I: Foundations Data Source P=product I=interview Glossary Corresponding Interview Question Score: Does the behavior support team leader report that at least 50% of behavior support team members attend annual professional development training in targeted and intensive interventions? (0= none attend., 1= less than 50%, 2 = yes Behavior support team leader interview Other I A targeted intervention is defined as an intervention designed for students who are not responding to universal interventions. These interventions are implemented in a similar manner for all students receiving it. Eligible students might need additional social, academic, and/or organizational support. Do any BST team members attend annual professional development training in targeted and intensive interventions? Yes No If so, how many? An intensive individual intervention is defined as an intervention for students who need individualized behavior support. 1. Does the behavior support team leader report that office discipline referral (ODR) patterns are regularly used to identify individual students who might benefit from a targeted or intensive intervention? (0= no, 1= yes, but less than monthly, 2= yes, scheduled review, at least monthly) Behavior support team leader interview Other I Who reviews ODRs: The SWPBS Team or BST could do this screening. Are office discipline referral data reviewed and used to identify students who currently are not receiving an intervention but who might benefit from a targeted or intensive intervention? Yes No If yes, how often? C. Student Identification 2. Does the ODR form have preliminary FBA information: (a) time, (b) location, (c) behavior (d) administrative decision, (e) possible motivation, and (f) others involved? (0= 0-2 items, 1= 3-4 items, 2= 5-6 items) ODR form Other P 3. Does at least 80% of staff asked (at least 5) agree with the team leader on the process for requesting behavioral assistance? (0= less than 50%, 1= 51-79%, 2= 80% or higher) Behavior support team leader interview and staff interviews Other I Is there a process for requesting assistance from the team for a student that may need extra behavior support? Yes No If yes, what is the process? (Get copy of Request for Assistance forms) Staff Question: What is the process used to request assistance for an individual student needing extra behavior support? Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page 99 11

106 Feature Evaluation Question Part I: Foundations Data Source P=product I=interview Glossary Corresponding Interview Question Score: Does the BST Leader report that least 4 of 5 of the most recent requests for assistance received support (meeting held or had an FBA conducted/started and intervention planned) within 10 school days of the request? Behavior support team leader interview or Other I Clarification: FBA and intervention may be in process and incomplete. Have at least 4 of 5 of the most recent requests for assistance received support (meeting held or had an FBA conducted/started and intervention planned) within 10 school days of the request? (0= no or 1, 1= 2-3 of most recent requests for assistance, 2= yes) 5. Does the BST leader report that a consistent process is used to decide whether a student should receive a specific targeted intervention or an FBA and an intensive intervention? (0= no, 1= targeted or intensive only, 2= both) Behavior support team leader interview Other I Do you have a process for determining if a student begins a targeted intervention? Yes No How about a process for determining if a student begins an intensive intervention? Yes No 1. Is there documentation that the progress of all students on targeted or intensive interventions is reviewed by the BST at least monthly? (0= no 1= less than monthly or verbal report only 2= at least monthly) Behavior support team leader interview and Team meeting minutes Other I P Do you monitor the outcomes for students receiving targeted or intensive behavior support? Yes No If yes, how often? Is that documented somewhere? Yes No D. Monitoring & Evaluation 2. Does a team (school-wide or BST) review data across all students in the school (e.g., ODR patterns, formative evaluation) at least three times per year to assess whether the school needs to develop new targeted interventions, or modify existing targeted and intensive interventions? 0= no, 1= yes, but less then three times per year, 2= yes Behavior support team leader interview I If yes, ask to review documentation. Does a team (school-wide or BST) review data across all students across the school (e.g., ODR patterns, formative evaluation) to determine whether the school needs to develop or modify their existing targeted and intensive interventions? - Yes No If yes, how often? Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page

107 Feature Evaluation Question Part I: Foundations Data Source P=product I=interview Glossary Corresponding Interview Question Score: Does the administrator report that the number of students receiving targeted or intensive interventions and their overall progress is reported to faculty at least 3 times a year? Administrator interview Other I Is the number of students and their status as a group reported to the entire faculty? Yes No If yes, how often? (0= no, 1=1-2 times a year, 2=yes) 4. Is there a documented process for notifying staff members involved with students needing targeted or intensive behavior support? (0= no 1= yes, initial contact is documented but staff are not informed of on-going progress/outcomes, 2= yes) Behavior support team leader interview Staff handbook and/or process description Other I P Documented Process: Something written in the staff handbook or BST handbook Do you notify staff members involved with those students? Yes No If yes, is the process written down? Yes No Once an intervention has been implemented, does staff continue to receive information about their student s progress? Yes No 5. Is there a documented process for notifying and routinely updating family members when a student needs targeted and intensive behavior support? (0= no documentation 1=yes, initial contact documented to obtain consent but family members are not informed of /included in on-going progress/ outcomes, 2= yes Behavior support team leader interview Parent notification letter/form and/or process description Other I P Documented Process: Something written in the staff handbook or BST handbook. Once it has been determined that a student needs targeted or intensive support, is there a process for notifying and including family members? Yes No If yes, is the process written down? Once an intervention has been implemented, do parents continue to receive information about their child s progress? Yes No Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page

108 Feature E. Implementation Evaluation Question 1. Is it documented that the most commonly used targeted intervention include 80% of implementation features as defined on the Targeted Intervention Implementation Feature Checklist? (0= 0-49% features, 1= 50%-79% features, 2= 80%-100% features) Part II: Targeted Interventions Data Source P=product I=interview Targeted intervention feature checklist & written program description Behavior support team leader interview I P Glossary Targeted Intervention Implementation Feature Checklist Is the intervention organized around SW expectations or SW academic goals? Yes No Is the intervention available for students to enter at any time? Yes No When students are identified for the intervention do they begin the intervention within 3 school days of determination? Yes No Do student assessment/progress data prompt the need for modification? Yes No Does the intervention include structured prompts for what to do during the day (relevant situations)? Yes No Do students on the intervention receive positive feedback from staff on a daily basis? Yes No Does the intervention include a weekly check-in with the student s family? Yes No Are orientation materials available for students entering the intervention? Yes No Are orientation materials available for staff/substitutes/volunteers who have students using the intervention? Yes No Do students using the intervention have daily opportunities to use their new skills? Yes No Corresponding Interview Question Does your school have any targeted interventions available to students who might need them? Yes No If yes, what are they? Do you have anything written down that describes these interventions? Yes No Which one is most commonly used? Use their name for the program for the interview. In reference to (the most commonly used targeted intervention) Get written information about this intervention to score for documentation and use the Targeted Intervention Implementation Feature Checklist to score Score: Are training and orientation procedures for the most commonly used targeted intervention documented for staff, volunteers, substitutes, students, and families? (0= no, 1= training and orientation occurs, but not documented 2= yes) Behavior support team leader interview Training & orientation materials I P How do you train or orient staff, volunteers, substitutes, students and families about the (most commonly used targeted intervention)? Do you have anything written down that describes this orientation or training? Yes No (ask to review it) Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page

109 Feature Evaluation Question Part II: Targeted Interventions Data Source P=product I=interview Glossary Corresponding Interview Question Score: Does the most commonly used targeted intervention have dedicated FTE (setaside time apart of their other job responsibilities) allocated for managing, coordinating, and monitoring the intervention? (0= no, 1= yes, but not documented, 2= documented in a written job description) Behavior support team leader interview & coordinator job description for most commonly used targeted intervention Other I P Who manages, coordinates and monitors the (most commonly used targeted intervention, their program name)? Does this person have formally allocated time apart from their other job responsibilities for this coordination? Yes No Is that documented in their job description? Yes No If yes, ask to see the job description. 4. Does the behavior support team leader report that the most commonly used targeted intervention requires no more than 10 min per day from any instructional/supervisory staff (other than people who coordinate, implement, or manage the program)? (0= requires more than 30 min, 1= requires min, 2= requires 10 min or less) Behavior support team leader interview Other I How much time does the (most commonly used targeted intervention) require per day for instructional staff to implement/monitor (this refers to instructional staff who implement the program with students during the school day)? F. Evaluation & Monitoring 1. Are there documented decision rules for monitoring, modifying, or discontinuing the targeted intervention for a student? (0=no, 1= decision rules exist, but not documented, 2=yes) Behavior support team leader interview Decisionmaking matrix Other I P How are decisions made about how to monitor and when to modify or discontinue a targeted intervention? Are there written decision rules or a process for how this happens? Yes No (ask to review them) 2. Does the team gather data at least annually to evaluate fidelity of implementation of the most commonly used targeted intervention? (0= no, 2=yes) Behavior support team leader interview Other I Does the team collect and review data at least once a year to evaluate that the (most commonly used targeted intervention) is being implemented as planned (with fidelity)? Yes No Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page

110 Part III: Intensive Individualized Interventions Feature Evaluation Question Data Source Glossary Corresponding Interview Question Score: Do at least two, but no more than 4, randomly chosen functional behavior assessments (written within the past academic school year) include an operational definition of problem behavior that is observable and countable? Written FBA summary/ BSP Other P Operational Definition of Problem Behavior: What the student says or does. (0=no, 1= in at least one plan, 2= yes) G. Assessment 2. Do at least two, but no more than 4, randomly chosen functional behavior assessments (written within the past academic school year) include a statement that indicates the problem behavior, events that trigger the problem behavior (antecedent), and events that maintain the problem behavior (consequence)? Written FBA summary/ BSP Other P Antecedents: events in the setting that trigger the problem behavior Consequences and events in the setting that maintain the problem behavior. (0= no, 1= in at least one plan, 2= yes) 3. When a team meets to complete an FBA, does the team include individuals with knowledge about a) the student, b) the setting in which problem behavior most often occurs, and c) an understanding of functional behavior assessment and building behavior support plans linked to the functional behavior assessment? Behavior support team leader interview Other I When the team meets to complete an FBA, does the team include individuals with knowledge about: 1. The student? Yes No 2. The setting in which the problem behavior usually occurs? Yes No (0= 0-1 feature 1= 2 features 2= yes, all three features) 3. An understanding of functional behavior assessment and building behavior support plans linked to the functional behavior assessment? Yes No Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page

111 Part III: Intensive Individualized Interventions Feature Evaluation Question Data Source Glossary Corresponding Interview Question Score: Do at least two, but no more than 4, randomly chosen behavior support plans (written within the past academic school year); include a statement that indicates the problem behavior, events that trigger the problem behavior (antecedents), and events that maintain the problem behavior (consequences)? Written Behavior Support Plans Other P Antecedents: events in the setting that trigger the problem behavior Consequences and events in the setting that maintain the problem behavior. (0= no, 1 = in at least one plan, 2= yes) H. Implementation 2. Do at least two, but no more than 4, randomly chosen behavior support plans, (written within the past academic school year) include a statement that identifies at least one strategy for preventing the problem behavior? Written Behavior Support Plans Other P (0= no, 1= in at least one plan, 2= yes) 3. When a team meets to complete a BSP, does the team include individuals with knowledge about a) the student, b) the setting in which problem behavior most often occurs, and c) an understanding of functional behavior assessment and building behavior support plans linked to the functional behavior assessment? Behavior support team leader interview Other I When the team meets to complete an BSP, does the team include individuals with knowledge about: The student? Yes No The setting in which the problem behavior usually occurs? Yes No (0= 0-1 feature 1= 2 features 2= yes, all 3 features) An understanding of functional behavior assessment and building behavior support plans linked to the functional behavior assessment? Yes No 4. Do at least two, but no more than 4, randomly chosen behavior support plans, (written within the past academic school year) include at least one strategy for minimizing reinforcement of problem behavior (e.g. extinction)? Written Behavior Support Plans Other P Minimizing reinforcement of problem behavior: (e.g., extinction, redirection, consistent response) (0= no, 1 = in at least one plan, 2= yes) Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page

112 Part III: Intensive Individualized Interventions Feature Evaluation Question Data Source Glossary Corresponding Interview Question Score: Do at least two behavior support plans, (written within the past academic school year) include at least one strategy for reinforcing the use of the desired/alternative behaviors? (0= no, 1 = in at least one plan, 2= yes) Written Behavior Support Plans Other P 6. If a behavior plan focuses on a problem behavior that places the student or others at physical risk, do at least two plans (written in the past year) include procedures for preventing physical harm to self or others? Written Behavior Support Plans Other I P If a behavior support plan focuses on a problem behavior that places a student or others at physical risk, does the team have a strategy for identifying risk and implementing a safety plan if needed? Yes No (see BSPs for documentation) 0 = risk exists and no procedures defined, 1 = two plans with risk exist and one indicates plan for preventing harm, 2 = two plans with risk exist and both include plans for preventing harm, or plans with risk not reviewed but behavior support team coordinator indicates that team has strategy for identifying risk and implementing a safety plan if needed. I. Evaluation and Monitoring 1. Do at least two, but no more than 4, randomly chosen behavior support plans (written within the past academic school year) include a system for assessing the fidelity with which the plan of support is being implemented, at least twice a month? Written Behavior Support Plans Other P (0= no, 1 = in at least one plan and/or less frequently than twice a month 2= yes) 2. Do at least two, but no more than 4, randomly chosen behavior support plans (written within the past academic school year) include a system for assessing the impact of the plan on student outcomes at least twice a month? Written Behavior Support Plans Other P (0= no, 1 = in at least one plan and/or less frequently than twice a month 2= yes) Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page

113 Targeted Intervention Implementation Feature Checklist ISSET Evaluation Question E1. 1. Use this checklist to answer the evaluation question in E1: Does the most commonly used targeted intervention include 80% of implementation features as defined on the Targeted Intervention Implementation Feature checklist? 2. Using the definition below, ask the behavior support team leader what targeted interventions exist at the school and which one is the most commonly used targeted intervention. List the targeted interventions identified by the team leader and score each one below. Use the most commonly used targeted intervention to score ISSET question E1. Targeted Intervention Defined: A targeted intervention is an intervention designed for students who are not responding to universal interventions. These interventions are implemented in a similar manner for all students receiving it. These students typically need additional social, academic, and/or organizational support. School: Date: Critical Features Most Commonly Used Intervention Targeted Intervention 2 = documented,, 0= not included 1. Intervention is linked directly to school wide expectations or school wide academic goals. 2. Intervention is continuously available for student participation. 3. Intervention is implemented within 3 school days of determination that the student should receive the intervention. 4. Intervention can be modified based on assessment and/or outcome data. 5. Intervention includes structured prompts for what to do in relevant situations. 6. Intervention results in student receiving positive feedback from staff. 7. Intervention includes a school-home communication exchange system at least weekly 8. Orientation materials provide information for a student to get started on the intervention 9. Orientation materials provide information for staff/substitutes/volunteers that have students using the intervention. 10. Opportunities to practice new skills are provided daily Total Points Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page

114 Intensive Individualized Interventions Features Checklist Use for scoring ISSET Part III, Questions G 1-2, H 1-2 & 4-6, I 1-2. FBA includes Plan #1 Plan #2 Total yes s 1. An operational definition of problem behavior(s) that is observable & countable. (G1) Y N Y N 2. A statement about the relation between events that precede (trigger) problem behavior and/or events that follow and maintain the behavior (G2) Y N Y N Behavior Support Plans include Plan #1 Plan #2 Total yes s 1. An operational definition of problem behavior (or attached FBA that included the operational definition). (G1) Y N Y N 2. A statement about the relation between FBA results and the BSP. (H1) Y N Y N 3. A statement that that identifies at least one strategy for preventing the problem behavior. (H2) Y N Y N 4. At least one strategy for minimizing reinforcement of problem behavior. (H4) Y N Y N 5. At least one strategy for reinforcing the use of the desired/alternative behaviors. (H5) Y N Y N 6. A statement that identifies a safety plan for preventing physical harm to self or others. (H6) 7. A formal and regular (at least twice a month) system for assessing the fidelity with which the plan of support is being implemented. (I1) Y N N/A Y N Y N N/A Y N 8. A formal and regular (at least twice a month) system for assessing the impact of the plan on student outcomes. (I2) Y N Y N Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page

115 Scoring the ISSET Summarize ISSET Scores 1. ISSET results are summarized as a percent of features implemented score for each of the three parts 2. Calculate a percent implemented for each feature area a. Use the summary score template at the end of the scoring guide to record the total number of points for each feature area. b. Convert each feature area to a percent implemented score by dividing the total points received by the total possible points for that feature area. c. Calculate a percent implemented for each of the three parts d. For each of the three parts, calculate the percent of percents i. Total the percentages for the feature areas in each part ii. Divide the total percent received by the total number of feature areas within that part 1. Part I has four feature areas 2. Part II has two feature areas 3. Part III has three feature areas Foundations Targeted Intensive Feature Area Implementation Scores A = /10 = % E = /8 = % G = /6 = % B = /6 = % F = /4 = % H = /12 = % C = /10 = % I = /4 = % D = /10 = % Summary Score for each ISSET Part Total % s & divide by 4 Total % s & divide by 2 Total % s & divide by 3 Part I: Part II: Part III: Share Summary Scores 1. Create two graphs a. A graph with the percent implemented for each of the nine feature areas b. A graph with the percent implemented for each of the three parts c. Prepare a brief written explanation of the data focusing on the things that the school is doing well and have in place as well as the areas where some revisions may strengthen the existing procedure(s). d. Ideally, share the information with the team when they meet to review the status and Action Plan for the future. Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool version 2.8, February 2011 Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai & Sampson Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon Page