Tim Lewis, Ph.D. , Barbara Mitchell,

Targeted /Small Group Interventions: A Proposed Model for Tier 2 Systems Implementation
Tim Lewis, Ph.D. , Barbara Mitchell, Terry Bigby, Ph.D. and Linda Bradley University of Missouri Missouri Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support <pbismissouri.org> OSEP Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports <pbis.org>

Session Overview Part One Part Two Overview/ Basics
“Model” process and essential features Part Two School examples highlighting systems for adults, practices for students, and data used to guide the process

School-wide PBS Process
See Small Group Catalog and Planning Forms

Practices (what we do for students)
Clear Outcomes/Objectives Research supported Technical assistance input Stake holder input Matched to needs of student but not highly individualized

Systems (how we support adults)
Evaluate Current systems Allocate/reallocate resources Develop process/model and forms (adult & student) Training / information dissemination On-going support (adult & students) Develop formative evaluation process (student outcomes, adult use, success and barriers) Provide frequent positive & instructional feedback to staff All staff aware of entrance/exit and purpose plus follow-along activities

Data (how we make decisions)
How to identify students / Data Decision rules Progress along the way Student outcomes Adult perceptions System analyses / Cost benefit Staff aware of DDR and process to place students in tier II supports

Policy (how to maintain change)
Create standard processes Codify within existing policy Dissemination to multiple audiences Create Tier II handbook and review annually

Small Group Starting Points
Pre-requisites Universals firmly in place including classrooms Data used consistently in team meetings Requisites Data decision rules to identify students who need additional supports supports Environment Student Progress monitoring plan developed Equal attention to practices (student support) and systems (adult support)

Phases of Implementation
Student Support Model Phases of Implementation Tier 2 all about prevention. Prevent existing cases from rising to the level of needing individualized supports. Prevention means early identification, early intervention = rapid access to a bank of existing supports. How do we help our schools get there?

Function-based Intervention
Analysis and/or Full Assessment Phase 4: Evaluate Outcomes & Make Decisions Academic Support(s) Check In/ Check Out Mentoring Social Skill Club Avoid Tasks? Obtain Attention? Obtain Attention? Skill Deficit? Phase 3: Function-based Intervention Targeted Environmental Interventions Step 2: Teacher & Team synthesize data to 1) Define Problem 2) Develop Hypothesis 3) Identify Replacement 4) Select Intervention Step 1: Teacher and Team Partner collect data. Nonresponder as compared to typical peer? Full access to Tier 1 supports? Is Identification process accurate and durable? Phase 2: Identification Process Student Support Model (picture) Tier Two Action Plan Checklist (words) This is how we’ve worked with teams to take a complicated process and break it down into more simple, manageable tasks. Goal today is to show you exactly how we talk our schools through this piece. Content will not be new, but consider whether this is a useful way to teach schools who might be new to the process. Starts at the bottom and we work our way up. At the very top is full functional assessment – not talking about that today. Four boxes across the top are the small group interventions we teach our schools. Small group support means the same intervention is provided to a small group of students. But we also talk about Targeted support – those are environmental variables we can manipulate to better support kids. Practices that we provide to all students, but then give in a higher dose to some students = increasing positive feedback, reteaching rules, changing the difficulty level of an academic task. We talk in terms of phases- provide adequate instruction to all students, identify students who need additional support, provide a function-based intervention, then evaluate the outcomes of that intervention and make decisions. Teacher/Parent Nomination Data Decision Rules Universal Screening Instrument Tier 1 implemented with fidelity? If Yes, then Phase 1: Provide Adequate Instruction Classroom System Nonclassroom System Schoolwide System

*Team based support throughout each phase
Student Support Model Phase 1 = Provide Adequate Instruction Phase 2 = Identification Process Phase 3 = Function-based Intervention Collect Student Information Select Intervention Implement Intervention Phase 4 = Evaluate Outcomes & Make Decisions *Team based support throughout each phase Provide adequate instruction to all students – what does that mean?

Phase 1 = Provide Adequate Instruction
Teach, Practice, Acknowledge, Respond Consistently School-wide, Non-classroom, Classroom Initial & Data-based, On-going Goal = Students have time to respond Teachers have time to know students Caveat = Students who can’t wait Establish Criteria… Serious/Chronic; Dangerous or violent Provide adequate instruction means…. Identify expectations and rules, teach, practice, acknowledge and respond consistently School-wide means all faculty/staff, all students Non-classroom means all settings Classroom means I also do this in my individual classroom Goal is to give students time to respond and give teachers time to know students. Then we are going to start looking for those students who need more. I want to be more specific about classrooms for just a minute

Effective Classroom Practice: Expectations & Rules Procedures & Routines Continuum of Strategies to Acknowledge Appropriate Continuum of Strategies to Respond to Inappropriate Active Supervision High Rates of Engagement: OTR Activity Sequence & Offering Choice Academic Success & Task Difficulty This is a list of research based practices we are using with our schools. When we say provide adequate instruction in the classroom we mean do these 8 things. This list came from…. Brandi Simonson at the University of Connecticut and 2008 l Education and Treatment of Children “Evidence Based Practices in Classroom Management” Lee Kern and Nathan Clemens from Lehigh University. 2007 Psychology in the Schools “Antecedent Strategies to Promote Appropriate Classroom Behavior” Using mini-modules to teach each of these practices to our coaches and schools. Mini-module is a short set of powerpoint slides with notes and an activity that can be completed during coach training meetings. We also include a summary sheet and a list of references. Coaches use the modules to teach these practices to PBS teams and then also to faculty within their building.

Was Tier 1 Implemented with Fidelity? Did all students receive adequate instruction? SET = score (80/80) within past 18 months SAS = 80% report systems are in place Data indicating 80% or more of students have 0-1 ODR Classroom Walkthrough Observation Data Strengths and limitations to each of these indicators SET: measures school-wide and non-classroom, but no information about classroom SAS/EBS: measures school-wide, non-classroom and classroom implementation, but it is self-perception data; tend to over or under rank ODR: Some buildings are at greater risk than others; 80% at 0-1 may never be a reasonable goal Developed an observation tool that mirrors the 8 classroom practices we teach. Allows administrators to give feedback to teachers about their individual classroom implementation. Top number refers to section on teaching expectations; bottom number refers to overall average

Student Support Model Phase 1 = Provide Adequate Instruction Phase 2 = Identification Process Phase 3 = Function-based Intervention Collect Student Information Select Intervention Implement Intervention Phase 4 = Evaluate Outcomes & Make Decisions *Team based support throughout each phase After we provide adequate instruction to all students – at some point we need to determine which students need additional support Prevention = early identification, early intervention. Want to actively seek these students out; not wait to fail model. Variety of ways we can find at risk students

Phase 2 = Identification Process
Externalizing Behavior Examples… Aggression to others or things Hyperactivity Non-compliance Disruptive Arguing Defiance Stealing Not following directions Calling out When we develop an identification process we are looking for students with 2 kinds of behavior First we look for students with Externalizing behaviors Raise your hand if you have worked with this type of student already this year

Internalizing Behavior Examples… Exhibits sadness or depression Sleeps a lot Is teased or bullied by peers Does not participate in games Very shy or timid Acts fearful Does not stand up for self Self-injury (cutting, head banging) Withdrawn But we are also looking for students with Internalizing types of problems. These students are equally at risk, but are often more difficult to find As we work with schools our goal is to help them develop a systematic, organized process for identifying students with externalizing and internalizing types of behavior, we want this to be proactive and early identification

Teacher Nomination for Assistance Short/simple Designed for quick response Identifies internalizing & externalizing ? Allows for early identification? One way to find at risk students is a teacher nomination process. Most of the schools we work with have some type of nomination or referral process in place. However, for a variety of reasons teachers are more likely to refer students for academic concerns than for behavior. In addition, if a student is referred for a behavior concern typically it is students with externalizing concerns who are nominated

Data Decision Rules ODR/Classroom Minors Attendance Academic Indicators/Grades Identifies internalizing & externalizing ? Allows for early identification Also asking schools to consider use of data decision rules = automatic trigger that starts conversation about a student who may be at risk. Data decision rules tend to find students with externalizing types of behaviors

Universal Screening Instruments Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (K-6) Walker & Severson, 1990 Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (K-12) Goodman, 2001 Behavioral & Emotional Screening System (PreK-12) Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2008 Identifies internalizing & externalizing ? Allows for early identification A third option is to consider use of a screening instrument. There are a variety of tools available that allow teachers to identify and rate students The examples listed here are research validated tools and are useful in identifying students with externalizing and internalizing types of concerns.

Student Support Model Phase 1 = Provide Adequate Instruction Phase 2 = Identification Process Phase 3 = Function-based Intervention Collect Student Information Select Intervention Implement Intervention Phase 4 = Evaluate Outcomes & Make Decisions *Team based support throughout each phase Once we identify which student are at- risk, the next phase is to provide a function based intervention

Phase 3 = Function Based Intervention
Collect Student Information Simple FBA Standard Protocol = (FACTS) Team Developed Select Intervention Targeted Environment; Social Skill Group; CICO; Mentoring (adult or peer); Academic Support Implement Intervention Minimum 4 data points collected over 4 weeks (Sprague et al, 2008, p.79) Providing a function based intervention involves 3 steps Simple FBA = what amount and type of information do we need in order to make a best guess about function of behavior, but still provide rapid access to an intervention? FACTS is an interview format Teams can develop their own method of collecting information based on data they already collect in their schools. Once we have a best guess about function, then we select and implement the intervention.

Phase 4 = Evaluate Outcomes & Make Decisions
Was the IV implemented with integrity? Does the IV match function of student behavior? Use data to determine response to the intervention … Fade or Continue If student has 3-4 consecutive data points below the goal line… (Sadler & Sugai, 2009) Modify or Intensify

Function-based Intervention
Analysis and/or Full Assessment Phase 4: Evaluate Outcomes & Make Decisions Academic Support(s) Check In/ Check Out Mentoring Social Skill Club Avoid Tasks ? Obtain Attention? Obtain Attention? Skill Deficit? Phase 3: Function-based Intervention Targeted Environmental Interventions Step 2: Teacher & Team synthesize data to 1) Define Problem 2) Develop Hypothesis 3) Identify Replacement 4) Select Intervention Step 1: Teacher and Team Partner collect data. Nonresponder as compared to typical peer? Full access to Tier 1 supports? Is Identification process accurate and durable? Phase 2: Identification Process Teacher/Parent Nomination Data Decision Rules Universal Screening Instrument Tier 1 implemented with fidelity? If Yes, then Phase 1: Provide Adequate Instruction Classroom System Nonclassroom System Schoolwide System

Tier 2 Action Plan Checklist
Tier 2 Team Student Identification Process Function-based Matching Process Intervention Implementation Monitoring Progress, Evaluating Outcomes & Making Decisions Strategies for Communication

System Level Evaluation
Checklist for Individual Student Systems (CISS) Part I. Foundations Establish & Maintain a Behavior Support Team Strategies for Meeting the Needs of Students Monitoring & Evaluation Part II: Targeted Interventions Part III: Intensive Individual Interventions

System Level Evaluation
Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers (BAT) Implementation of SW PBS Foundations for Tiers II & III Commitment Student Identification Monitoring & Evaluation Tier 2 Support Systems Tier 2 Strategy Implementation

Essential Features Emphasis is on continuum and interrelated components of data, practices, systems

Targeted/Small Group Interventions: Building Blocks
Teach/build pro-social replacement behaviors Attend to possible function of the problem behavior Build maintenance and generalization strategies to promote use Connect points to universals

Targeted/Small Group Interventions
Consider Not fixed group of students Student’s needs vary across continuum over time and within academic/social area Least intrusive but matched to student need Response may be environmental changes without direct student intervention

Structural Analysis Setting Factors Assessment Tool
Level 1: Classroom Set-up and Structure Level 2: Context Specific Activities Level 3: Instructional Delivery and Tasks Level 4: Student Behavior Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Johnson, N., & Trussell, R. (2004). Toward a structural assessment: Analyzing the merits of an assessment tool for a student with E/BD. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30,

Important Themes Common misperception is that these strategies will “fix” the student and the classroom teacher does not need to be an active participant since “specialists” or outside staff are often involved in the intervention – Important to stress that these interventions will require high level of involvement among ALL staff within the school building 34

Data: Assessment Focus is on sorting student for service, not “diagnosis and placement.” Social-Behavioral Concerns Social skills Self-management Academic Concerns Peer Tutors Check in Homework club Emotional Concerns Adult mentors 35

Practices: Building Blocks
Teach/build pro-social replacement behaviors Build maintenance and generalization strategies to promote use Attend to possible function of the problem behavior 36

Small Group / Targeted Practices
Social Skill Training Self-Management Mentors Check-in Peer tutoring / Peer Network Academic support 37

Match language to school-wide expectations
Social Skills Identify critical skills (deficit or performance problem) Develop social skill lessons “Tell, show, practice” Match language to school-wide expectations Generalization strategies Must provide clear & specific activities all staff follow to promote generalization & make sure staff using strategies

Self-Management Teach self-monitoring & targeted social skills simultaneously Practice self-monitoring until students accurately self-monitor at 80% or better Periodic checks on accuracy It is not simply giving students a self-evaluation check-list, must teach and practice to fluency and reinforce both accurate self-evaluation and appropriate behavior

Mentoring Focus on “connections” at school Staff volunteer
Not monitoring work Not to “nag” regarding behavior Staff volunteer Not in classroom No administrators Match student to volunteer 10 minutes min per week Emphasize the importance of being ready to meet with student on a regular, predictable, and consistent basis. Goal is not to become a “friend,” but a positive adult role model who expresses sincere and genuine care for the student

Check-in Focus is on academic & social compliance
AM / PM Teach strategies to enter work /objectives to accomplish Agendas All staff must prompt/reinforce student use Emphasize the goal is to fade out the check-in so the focus should be on reinforcing students for accurately self-monitoring and work completion across the school day

Schools Implementing Tier 2 Support
MO SW-PBS Center for PBS College of Education University of Missouri

Feature 1: Tier 2 Team Feature Evaluation Yes No
A tier 2 team is identified to develop T2 process, interventions, & make decisions about students List of Team Members Team roles & responsibilities are designated Team members with assigned roles Tier 2 team meets at least every 2 weeks Team Meeting Schedule Meetings are organized and employ a standard format Copies of agenda Tier 2 team is provided info about systems, data, practices required for implementation of T2 supports PD Calendar; Attendance at MO SWPBS coach mtgs Team conducts an audit to determine existing interventions available Copy of audit Team provides support for staff who implement T2 interventions PD Schedule; faculty meeting agenda

Tier 2 Team Membership Principal or Asst. Principal
Universal SW-PBS team member Faculty with expertise in behavior assessment and interventions General Educator with expertise in academic assessment and intervention Missouri has divided the state into 9 regions. In 3 of the regions, each Pilot School Tier 2 team has 4 members. In the elementary school pilots, the principal serves on the Tier 2 team. In the middle school pilots, the asst. principal in charge of discipline serves on the Tier 2 team. The general educator in each school has expertise in reading. Each educator with behavioral expertise has experience conducting functional behavior assessments. 50

Team Roles & Responsibilities
Chairperson/Facilitator Recorder/Secretary Data-base Manager Communication Coordinator Chairperson/Facilitator Develop Agenda Facilitate meeting Follow-up on assigned tasks Seek input from staff Recorder/Secretary Keep minutes Distribute minutes to team members Notify/remind team members of meeting time and location Keep record of students eligible, intervention applied, and result of intervention Data-base Manager Presents data regarding # of students eligible for Tier 2 Presents data for team to identify function of student behavior Presents data for team to review to recommend future action (dismiss, maintain or intensify) Produce graphs of student progress Communication Coordinator Report progress and data-based feedback to staff Maintain systems of communication with staff Communicates Tier 2 supports with faculty and staff Recognize & Celebrate Success 51

Team Meetings The Tier 2 Team meets once every two weeks.
The team utilizes an agenda and follows a standard format: Data check for students with multiple minors or majors Assign additional data collection for students who meet data decision rule Update on student progress Fidelity of Implementation Faculty support Establishes identification process for students who require and will benefit from Tier 2 interventions Each of these pilot schools utilizes data decision rule to identify students who require Tier 2 supports. Develops Tier 2 interventions Serves as problem solving team for students requiring Tier 2 interventions. Matches student need with appropriate Tier 2 intervention. Connects Tier 2 intervention with classroom and schoolwide expectations. Monitors fidelity of implementation and student response to intervention. Communicates Tier 2 supports with faculty and staff Reviews data to recommend future action (dismiss, maintain or intensify) 52

2. Student Identification Process
Feature Evaluation Yes No School uses data-based process for identifying students Check each process used: Screening All school staff are trained in and know process for initiating additional support Written procedures and PD Schedule Tier 2 Team systematically schedules time for review of data decision rules and/or screening results to identify Team meeting minutes Students identified for additional support have full access to Tier 2 supports Written procedures Process for access to intervention is designed for students to get assistance within 3-10 school days of identification Advanced Tier Data Collection Spreadsheet 53

Identify/Screen Non-Responders
Data Decision Rules ODR/Classroom Minors Attendance Grades Teacher Nomination/Request for Assistance Short/simple Designed for quick response The schools analyzed discipline data from prior years to identify the “critical number” of referrals – the number of referrals that indicated whether a student would engage in further misbehavior. The middle schools utilize office discipline referrals or majors. The elementary school utilizes minors. These schools will pilot the use of screening instruments this school year. All the schools also utilize a teacher nomination process to identify those students who may be internalizers as those students are not usually identified through review of majors or minors. 54

3. Matching Process Feature Evaluation Yes No
System for collecting, reviewing, and documenting student data is established. Written procedures. A brief process to identify function of behavior is established. Written procedures or flow chart of process. A set of research-based interventions, which can be matched to function of concern, is readily available. Description of each intervention available.

Review of Student Data Each school utilizes a data collection spreadsheet. A member of the Tier 2 team is selected to work with the grade level team to complete the data collection spreadsheet. How to run Tier 2 Interventions/Tier II Data Collection Spreadsheet.xls The data collection spreadsheet was adapted from one developed by the University of South Florida and the Florida Positive Behavior Support Project. The Tier 2 team member works with a teacher or grade level team to complete the data collection spreadsheet. 56

Identify Function & Match to Research-Based Intervention
The schools utilize the Competing Pathway Model to identify the function of each student’s behavior. The schools have developed 2 interventions at this time Academic Assistance Groups Check-In/Check-Out The Tier 2 team in each school worked on the development of Check-In/Check-Out Intervention during the school year. These teams will work on the development of social skills groups during the school year. 57

4. Intervention Implementation
Feature Evaluation Yes No Interventions are consistent with schoolwide expectations Description of interventions and/or copy of DPR Each intervention has written materials to describe the core features/purpose Description of Interventions Coordinator is designated for each intervention Intervention includes formal process for teaching appropriate behaviors Teacher Interview Intervention includes regular opportunities for students to perform appropriate behaviors Implementation requires no more than 10 minutes per day from staff Process for teaching staff to implement P D Schedule Each school addresses fidelity of intervention implementation at each Tier 2 Team Meeting. The greatest challenge for each school in implementing Tier 2 Interventions has been scheduling ongoing professional development. PD is necessary to address changes in teacher behavior (i.e. increasing positive feedback to exceed corrective feedback.) 58

Monitoring Progress, Evaluating Progress and Making Decisions
Feature Evaluation Yes No An information system is used to monitor the impact of interventions and the system allows for daily collection of behavior ratings. Individual student behavior rating graphs Each intervention uses accurate and objective data for monitoring student progress and making decisions Individual student behavior rating graphs and/or written materials

5. Monitoring Progress, Evaluating Progress and Making Decisions
Tier 2 team identifies goal(s) and timeline for implementation for each student. Record daily on Daily Progress Record (DPR) Progress Monitor weekly using criteria for placement in Tier 2 (monitor ODR, classroom minor, or behavior cited on nomination form) Team makes determination from progress review: maintain, fade, change intervention

Strategies for Communication
Feature Evaluation Yes No Teachers of students participating in an intervention receive progress updates at least monthly Format for progress updates is identified. Teacher Interview Faculty/staff is informed at least quarterly about the number of students receiving interventions and the progress of all. Faculty/Staff Interview There is a documented process for notifying and routinely updating family/guardian when a student is identified for and receives additional support. Family Interview

6. Strategies for Communication
Tier 2 team works with each student to develop graph of progress. The student shares the graph each week with teacher/MS team. Tier 2 reports numbers of students involved in interventions and response to intervention at each faculty meeting. Tier 2 team schedules professional development activities each month.

Derby Ridge Elementary

Derby Ridge Elementary
700 Students 80 Teachers and Certified Staff 62% Free & Reduced 10% Special Education Implementation of Universal, Tier 1 Interventions for 6 Years. 90/90 on SET

Tier 2 System Teacher Expectations Grade Level Teams
Tier 2 Team Representatives Tier 2 Team Capacity Building All Staff Grade Level Expertise Tier 2 Team Expertise

Teacher Expectations Implement Tier 1 with Fidelity
PBS Checklist Classroom Universal Checklist Review Student Data Regularly to Identify Students Who Need Tier 2 Support Communicate With Family and Staff Implement Interventions with Fidelity

Grade Level Teams Meet Weekly to Discuss Students Who Meet Data Decision Criteria Use Function Based Decision Making Review Data (Minors, ODRs, Attendance, Academics) Define Problem Behavior Match Classroom / Environmental Interventions to What the Student is Trying to “Get” or “Avoid” through Misbehavior. Collaborate and Generalize for Similar Students’ Behavior and Function

Tier 2 Grade Level Representatives
Guides Grade Level Teams through Function Based Decision Making Process. Serves as a Resource to Assist Teachers with Students’ Concerns.

SchoolwideTier 2 Team Developed Tier 2 System
Develop Small Group Interventions and Connect with Schoolwide Expectations Support Grade Level Team Process Communicate with Faculty and Staff About Tier 2 Process and Interventions Provide Professional Development

Review Tier 1 Implementation with PBS Checklist: DRE Expectations Matrix is our Social Curriculum All Staff Teach All Students Weekly “Super Skills” All Staff Give All Students Specific Performance Feedback Using “Braggin’ Dragon” Cards All Staff Give Effective Responses and Follow Continuum of Responses to Behavior Errors Review Using PBS Checklist, Classroom Universal Inventory and Administrative Walk-Through

Phase 2 = Screen for Risk Data Decision Rules: Teacher Nomination
2 major ODRs from Beginning of Year Minor Incidents Persist---5 after Sept 30 Attendance / Tardies a Concern—8 per trimester Academic Concerns Concern for Students with Internalizing Behavior Teacher Nomination Universal Screening

Phase 3 = Function Based Intervention
Teacher Collects Student Information Majors (Office) & Minor (Classroom) Academics & Attendance Function Strengths Grade Level Team Determines: Summary of Problem Replacement Behavior Student Goal Grade Level Team Select Classroom Intervention Antecedent, Behavior OutComes format Progress Monitoring Method Action Plan Follow Up Date

Small Group Interventions
In Process of Developing: Social Skills Club (Redefining Counselor Groups) Check In/Check Out Academic Support

Phase 4 = Evaluate Outcomes
Progress Monitoring for Individual Students in Tier 2: Determine Student Goal and Progress Monitor Review Data in Two Weeks and Share with Grade Level Team

Lessons Learned at Derby Ridge
Grade level teams need instruction about how to collect, analyze and make data decisions It is hard to stick to Tier 2 data rules and not “jump” to Tier 3 Teachers see “Support” as Outside Classroom Communication, communication, communication!

Tim Lewis, Ph.D. , Barbara Mitchell,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Tim Lewis, Ph.D. , Barbara Mitchell,"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Tim Lewis, Ph.D. , Barbara Mitchell,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Tim Lewis, Ph.D. , Barbara Mitchell,"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback