DIRECTORS OF STUDENT SERVICESOCEAN CITY RETREAT

JANUARY 22 AND 23, 2009PBIS IN 2009

Presented by Andrea Alexander, Milton McKenna, Jerry Bloom and Catherine Bradshaw

Advanced Organizer

• PBIS Initiative Status

• Update on 7-304: PBIS and the Law

• State Leadership Team Activity: - Recognition Subcommittee

- Training Subcommittee

• Update on Collaborative Research Activities

• What’s Next?

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individually Designed Interventions• Address individual needs of student• Assessment-based• High Intensity

Intensive, Individually Designed Interventions• Strategies to address needs of individual students with intensive needs• Function-based assessments• Intense, durable strategies

Targeted, Group Interventions• Small, needs-based groups for at risk students who do not respondto universal strategies• High efficiency• Rapid response

Targeted, Group Interventions• Small, needs-based groups for at- risk students who do not respond to universal strategies• High efficiency/ Rapid response• Function-based logic

Core Curriculum and Differentiated Instruction• All students• Preventive, proactive•School-wide or classroomsystems for ALL students

Core Curriculum and Universal Interventions• All settings, all students• Preventive, proactive• School-wide or classroom systems for ALL students and staff

Maryland’s Tiered Instructional and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Framework

School Mental

Health

Student Services

Social E

motio

nal

Learn

ing

Curricu

lum

Trua

ncy

Reduc

tion

Strat

egie

sSuspension

Reduction

Strategies

Special Education Assessment and

Referral Bullying Reduction Strategies

Maryland’s Tiered Instructional and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

Framework

PBIS Model: Whole-school Prevention• Application of behavioral, social learning, &

organizational behavioral principles – Clear behavioral expectations– Procedures for managing disruptions– Positive rewards

• Public health approach (universal / selective / indicated)– Requires a shift from punitive to preventive

• Focus on changing adult behavior– Team-based & data-based process– Emphasizes staff buy-in

• Can be implemented in any school level, type, or setting– Non-curricular model – flexible to fit school context

• Coaching to ensure high fidelity implementation

(Horner & Sugai, 2001; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai & Horner, 2006)

Maryland’s PBIS Infrastructure

State

District

School

Classroom

Student

School Level584 PBIS Teams (one per school)•Team leaders (one per school)•Behavior Support Coaches (380+)District Level (24)Regional Coordinators

State LevelState Leadership Team•Maryland State Department of Education •Sheppard Pratt Health System•Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention of Youth Violence•24 Local school districts•University of Maryland•Department of Juvenile Services•Mental Hygiene AdministrationManagement TeamPartnership Group National LevelNational PBIS Technical Assistance Center•University of Oregon•University of Connecticut•University of Missouri

PBIS in Maryland Schools

334 Elementary; 14 Elementary/Middle; 177 Middle; 81 High Schools; 44 Other

Where Are We In 2008?

7500 Schools across 44 states implementing school-wide positive behavior support

Leadership Team

FundingVisibility Political

Support

Training Coaching Evaluation

Active Coordination

Local School Teams/Demonstrations

PBIS Systems Implementation Logic

Cor

e Su

ppor

t Pro

gram

: Pr

ovid

ed to

all,

inte

nded

to re

ach

mos

t

Continuum of SupportsContinuum of Supports

The required resources to address the

problem increases

The need to enhance

environmental structures increases

The frequency for collecting

and acting upon

information increases

Opportunities to Increase Visibility • The Delinquency Prevention and Diversion Services Task Force• School Safety Action Planning Committee-Twice• International School Mental Health Conference• Blueprint for Mental Health’s Emotional Disturbance

Workgroup• Child Welfare Training Academy• Youth Investment Project• Advocates for Children and Youth Meeting• Pupil Personnel State meeting• Charles County Pupil Personnel Workers and Guidance/School

Counselors Meeting• APBS/PBIS Implementers Forums• Federal Legislation/2008 and anticipated in 2009• Montgomery County School visit in Montgomery County

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget RequestSchool Safety Solutions in Maryland

$928, 522• Further Youth Engagement

• Need for a Teacher’s Summit

• Community Forums

• Competitive Grants for School Resource Officers

• Expanded Training in PBIS

• 2 additional staff specifically trained to offer statewide training to school systems and schools in de-escalation and classroom management

• 1 support staff position

PBIS and the LAW 7-304.1: Schools To Be Identified in School Year 2008/2009

1. Elementary schools with suspension rates exceeding 12%;

2. Elementary schools already implementing PBIS with suspension rates exceeding 12%; and,

3. Any school with a truancy rate exceeding 8%;

4. Any school already implementing PBIS with a truancy rate exceeding 8%.

Defining TruancyThe source for truancy data is the report entitled

Habitual Truants, Maryland Public Schools, 2006-2007:

A student is considered a habitual truant if he or she

meets ALL of the following criteria:

• the student was age 5 through 20 during the school year;

• the student was in membership in a school for 91 or more days; and

• the student was unlawfully absent for 20% or more of the days in membership.

7500 Schools across 44 states implementing school-wide positive behavior support--2007

Increased Visibility of PBIS in MD and Nationally

• Number of PBIS Schools– 650 in MD (46%)– Over 7,500 in US

• 44 states have coordinated PBIS effort– Several other countries (Australia, Norway, Canada)

• Maryland Legislation– House Bill 1288 (2004)

• Required elementary schools (K-5) with high suspension rates (12%) to implement PBIS

– Truancy Bill (2008)• Requires any public school with high truancy rate to implement PBIS

• Federal Legislation– NCLB & IDEA

Recognition 2009

• Feedback from Local Systems

• Pulled group together

• Developed new application with all local input

• New awards will be Gold Silver and Bronze

• Application at www.pbismaryland.org

Training Subcommittee

• Hard working group

• Discussed fiscal realities for New and Returning team events

• Looking at methods for providing some formal training in Check in/Check out/BEP for one or two systems who have enough local capacity to support schools who are implementing

Dates to RememberEVENT LOCATION DATE(S)

SWIS Facilitator Training Loyola CollegeTimonium, Maryland

March 3 -5, 2009

APBS Hyatt JacksonvilleJacksonville, Florida

March 26 - 28, 2009

Leadership Summit Turf ValleyHoward County

March 30, 2009

Coaches’ Meeting Turf ValleyHoward County

April 21, 2009

Western Region Retuning Team:Allegany, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Washington

South Hagerstown HSWashington County

June 24, 2009

Central 2 Returning Team Training: Anne Arundel, Howard, Montgomery, Prince Georges

Old Mill ComplexAnne Arundel County

July 14, 2009July 15, 2009 for some LSS’s

Coaches Training Turf ValleyHoward County

July 20, 2009

New Team Training: Secondary Turf ValleyHoward County

July 21 -22, 2009

New Team Training: Elementary Turf ValleyHoward County

July 23 – 24, 2009

Southern Region Returning Team:Calvert, Charles, St. Mary’s

North Point HSCharles County

July 29 – 30, 2009

Catherine P. Bradshaw, PhD

Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth ViolenceIn Collaboration with the

PBIS Maryland Management Team (MSDE, SPHS, & JHU)

PBIS Maryland Initiative funded by MSDE & SPHS;Research supported by NIMH (1R01MH67948-1A) & CDC (1U49CE 000728 and K01CE001333-01)

Update on Collaborative Research Efforts Related

to PBIS

Group Randomized Trial of SWPBIS: Project Target

Funding Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC; Leaf, PI) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; Leaf, PI)

Sample• 37 voluntary elementary schools across 5 MD school districts

– Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore Co., Charles, & Washington– Enrollment 227-983; 60% Caucasian; 48% suburban; 41% urban fringe; 49% Title I

Design• Group randomized effectiveness trial

– 21 PBIS & 16 “Focus/Comparison”

• Baseline plus 4 years (spring 2002 - spring 2007)– Data from 29,423 students & 3,563 staff

Project Target

SET: PBIS Implementation Fidelity

43%

56%61%

49% 48%

37%

84%90% 91%

95%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Mea

n Sc

ores

(%

)

Focus PBIS

Notes. No significant differences between groups at baseline, but differences at all other years at p<.05. Overall SET score: Wilks’ Λ = .38, F (4,32) = 13.36, p <.001, partial η2 = .63, d = 3.22.

Significant improvement among PBIS

schools

Organizational Health Inventory (OHI)

• OHI: 37 item staff-report measure of 5 aspects of a healthy functioning school (Hoy et al., 1991)– academic emphasis - students are cooperative in the classroom

– staff affiliation - warm and friendly interactions, commitment, trust

– collegial leadership - principal’s behavior is friendly, supportive, open

– resource influence - principal’s ability to lobby for resources for school

– institutional integrity - protected from unreasonable community demands

– overall OHI score (average of 5 subscales)

0 1 2 3 42.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

Study Year

Ove

rall

OH

I

ComparisonPBIS

Effect of PBIS on Overall OHI

Note. Adjusted means from 3-level model. * Intervention effect on slope of overall OHI significant at p<.05. (Bradshaw et al., 2008; SPQ)

*

Sig. difference (.05)

Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs)Percent of Students with A Major or Minor ODR

22 21.8

21.1

19.6

1818.519

19.520

20.521

21.522

22.5

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

(%) S

tude

nts w

ith M

ajor

or M

inor

ODRs

PBIS

Note. Wilks’ Λ = .67, F[1,14] = 6.99, p =.019, η2 = .33, d = .07, adjusting for school system, % FARMS, and school enrollment. (Bradshaw et al., in press, JPBI)

Significant reduction among

PBIS schools

Teacher-Reported Office Discipline Referrals (ODR): Comparing PBIS and Focus

Across All Study Years

• Students in PBIS schools were 35% less likely than students in Focus schools to receive an ODR– Boys were 29% less likely to receive an ODR

– Girls were 45% less likely to receive an ODR• Effects were strongest for students who first received

PBIS in Kindergarten or 1st grade

Note. Based on teacher report. Estimates varied by generation (i.e., the grade the children were in during the first year of the Project Target), p<.05. Analyses adjust for school level covariates.

Suspension Rate (school-level duplicated counts)

5.1 5.14.5

3.6 3.4

7.7 7.8 7.7

6 6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Susp

ension

rate (%

)

Focus PBIS

Note. Wilcoxon test: (PBIS) Z = -2.17, p = .03, d = .27. ; (Comparison) Z = -1.54, p = .12

Significant reduction

among PBIS schools only

Teacher-reported Need & Use of Services: Comparing PBIS and Focus across All Study Years

• Generation K students in PBIS schools were 39% less to receive counseling for inappropriate behavior– Generation K girls in PBIS schools were 45% less likely

• Generation K students (overall and boys and girls) were 33% less likely to need counseling for social skills– Generation K boys in PBIS schools were 35% less likely

• There were no significant differences in special education service referral or use– Referral: 14.9% in PBIS vs. 15.4% in Focus schools– Use: 12.8% in PBIS vs. 12.7% in Focus schools

Note. Based on teacher report. Generation indicates the grade the child was in during the first year of the Project Target, p<.05. Analyses adjust for school level covariates.

Achievement Data: Cumulative Gains in MSA Advanced and Proficient Across All Available

Years

19.120.5

8

10.7

17.9

14.6

17

22.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

% P

oint

s Gaine

d

Grade 3 ReadingGrade 5 Reading Grade 3 Math Grade 5 Math

PT Focus PT PBIS

Note. †Grade 5 math: t = -1.67, df = 35, p = .105, d = .54

†

Summary of Randomized Trial Findings

• High fidelity implementation of PBIS– Comparison schools adopted some aspects of PBIS

• PBIS training associated with increase in school’s organizational health– Especially those starting at a slightly lower level

• Impact on students– Reductions in office discipline referrals

• Boys in PBIS schools were 31-56% less likely to receive an ODR

• Girls in PBIS schools were 62-63% less likely to receive an ODR

– Reductions in school-level suspensions

– Reduced need for counseling

– Positive trend in MSA achievement

Project Target

(Bradshaw et al., Prevention Science, School Psychology Quarterly, JPBI)

Current & Future Research Directions• Grants

– “Variations Grant” to U.S. DOE (IES)• Link Project Target and MSDE data to examine student-level

achievement, attendance etc.

• Determine needs of students not responding adequately to PBIS

– Center for Prevention and Early Intervention (NIMH, N.

Ialongo) – BCPSS• PATHS & Good Behavior Game with PBIS

• Middle School PATHS & Good Behavior Game with PBIS

• Middle School Coping Power for PBIS non-responders

– PBISplus Project• Supports for non-responders through connection with SST

PBISplus ProjectDesign• Federally funded 3-year randomized controlled trial (USDOE/IES)

• 45 elementary schools that have high fidelity PBIS & “yellow-zone” needs

- Cohort 1: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Charles, & Howard; - Cohort 2: Carroll & Prince George’s

• Random assignment to either “SWPBIS” or “Plus” condition

Aims• Address needs of PBIS “non-responders”• Increase use of evidence-based programs• Reduce behavior problems & improve achievement• Reduce disproportionality

Strategy• Provide training, support, and on-site technical assistance to SSTs and staff regarding:

– Simplified functional behavioral assessment and “function-based thinking”– Evidence-based programs– Effective teaming and collaborative problem-solving– Cultural competency training & culturally appropriate interventions

PBISplus

Summary of Support Services Provided by PBISplus Liaisons

Liaision Services Provided (total hours)

53.4

26.9

32.3

60.1

42.8

41.3

29.0

29.8

24.0

92.1

201.6

122.1

52.7

64.2

314.2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Other supportTeaming Process

RIDE processSelecting EBPs

FBA processData-based decision making

Cultural relevanceProfessional developmentData Collection strategies

Needs assessmentModel/shadow observationsModel/shadow consultation

Check In/Check OutAttend SWPBIS mtg

Attend SST mtg

Note. Data from Year 1 (Sept – May), N=14 schools

Observations from the Field: Year 1 in PBISplus• Schools need additional services and supports for the children

not responding adequately to the universal model

• In Year 1, Liaisons conducted 432 school visits – ≈ 3.4 visits per month, 3 hours each

– 1,296 total hours of consultation

• Most common services: – Attend SST meetings, conduct needs assessment, model/shadow

classroom observations, & model/shadow consultations with teachers

• Potential areas for additional technical assistance: – SWPBIS coaching, FBA, SST process, data-based decision-making,

& implementation fidelity of Check-in/Check-out

PBISplus

What’s next?? • What do we need to know from you as we

move forward?

AcknowledgementsJohns Hopkins • Phil Leaf• Katrina Debnam• Qing Zheng• Mary Mitchell• Catherine Bradshaw

Maryland State Departmentof Education• Chuck Buckler• Ann Chafin• Andrea Alexander• Milt McKenna

Research FundingP. Leaf: NIMH (R01 MH67948-1A1 )

P. Leaf: CDC (R49/CCR318627)C. Bradshaw: CDC (K01CE001333-01)

www.PBISMaryland.orgwww.PBIS.orgwww.jhsph.edu/PreventYouthViolence/Research/index.html

Additional Information on PBIS

Sheppard PrattHealth System• Burt Lohnes• Susan Barrett• Jerry Bloom

Contact Information-PBIS Management Team

• NAME/PHONE EMAIL AGENCY • Andrea Alexander aalexander@msde.state.md.us MSDE

410.767.0318• Susan Barrett sbarrett@pbismaryland.org SPHS

410.274.9835• Brian Bartels bbartels@msde.state.md.us MSDE

410.767.0294• Jerry Bloom jbloom@pbismaryland.org SPHS

443.386.2158• Catherine Bradshaw cbradsha@jhsph.edu JHU

410.502.2587• Shanda Crowder scrowder@msde.state.md.us MSDE

410.767.0736• Phil Leaf pleaf@jhsph.edu JHU

410.955.3962• Milt McKenna mmckenna@msde.state.md.us MSDE

410.767.0304• Richard Scott rscott@msde.state.md.us MSDE

410.767.0288