How to Implement Positive Behavioral Interventions ...

Download PDF
41 downloads 252 Views 260KB Size Report
Comment
101's provision for General Education Interventions) many schools in Maine have begun to ... collected by the Maine Technical Assistance Center on PBIS, implementation of PBIS is ...... Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, The Louis de la.
Maine PBIS White Paper

How to Implement Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in Maine A White Paper by PBIS-Maine Brian Cavanaugh University of Maine Farmington Pat Red University of Southern Maine James Artesani University of Maine Rebekah Bickford Rachel Brown-Chidsey University of Southern Maine

Maine PBIS White Paper

Table of Contents Introduction

3

Preventing Problem Behavior: A School Problem with School Solutions

5

PBIS, MTSS and the Public Health Model of Prevention

6

Evidence-Based Practices and PBIS Evidence-Based PBIS Practices

8 8

The State’s Role in the Implementation of PBIS

13

Conclusion

18

Recommendations

20

Maine PBIS Technical Assistance Providers

22

Helpful Resources

22

Reviewers

23

References

24

2

Maine PBIS White Paper Introduction Nationally, and in Maine, Schools are under increased pressure to ensure that all of their students are ready for higher education or the workforce upon completion of high school. This goal is made increasingly difficult by scarce funding and multiple, often competing, initiatives within schools. Thus, schools are not only expected to improve student performance but do so with limited resources. In this context of rising expectations and accountability, it is critical that available resources be allocated to research-based approaches that make efficient use of declining educational funds and have proven to be effective in school settings. Meeting this goal requires that every student receive effective academic instruction and social behavioral support based on individual need. Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) are efficient, theoretically sound, evidence-based frameworks for providing effective academic and social behavioral support to all students in grades K-12 (Florida Positive Behavior Support Project, 2011). Recently, MTSS such as Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) have received significant attention by schools and policy makers. Indeed, in response to federal and state regulations (i.e., IDEA 2004, Maine Chapter 101’s provision for General Education Interventions) many schools in Maine have begun to attempt to implement MTSS such as RTI and PBIS. While these implementation examples in Maine are well-intentioned and laudable, there is growing concern that implementation of MTSS at the school and district level may not have the desired impact due to confusion about what types of instruction, supports, and interventions MTSS actually encompass, a lack of resources and structure needed for implementation as well as inadequate fidelity of implementation. In order to illustrate the crucial importance of accurate utilization of student supports, this white paper will address the components of PBIS that must be

3

Maine PBIS White Paper considered in order to yield effective outcomes. It is worth noting that, according to data collected by the Maine Technical Assistance Center on PBIS, implementation of PBIS is currently occurring in 101 schools across 15 counties in Maine. The purpose of this white paper is to describe the evidence-based practices that encompass the framework of PBIS. Our goals are to: • • • •

clarify what effective implementation of PBIS looks like identify how PBIS meets the regulation of evidence-based practice under Maine Chapter 101 and IDEA (see box below) discuss effective implementation of PBIS practices discuss how the Maine Department of Education can effectively supports schools and districts with their local implementation of PBIS. This includes school, district, and statewide supports that have been found to be necessary to implement and sustain PBIS in schools.

How does PBIS meet state and federal regulations? In addition to its effectiveness, implementing PBIS is particularly compelling to schools due to the regulatory requirements set forth by the federal and state departments of education. Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), schools are required to use evidence-based practices. PBIS is an evidence-based framework for implementing effective behavioral supports for all students. Under Maine’s Special Education regulations (Chapter 101) schools are also required to implement evidence-based practices in language arts, mathematics, and behavior (PBIS). Furthermore, by July of 2012 each school in Maine must implement General Education Interventions in the areas of language arts, mathematics, and behavior. In the area of behavior, meeting this requirement includes implementing positive behavioral supports. The organization of this white paper is as follows. First, a brief discussion of the need for preventing problem behavior in schools is given. Then, an overview of preventive practices in schools is detailed. This is followed by a discussion of what PBIS is and what it is not. Finally, using the latest research from the field of implementation science, a discussion of the role of the Maine Department of Education as it relates to schools’ implementation of PBIS is put forth. At the end of the paper, separate recommendations for schools, districts, and the Maine Department of Education will be given.

4

Maine PBIS White Paper Preventing Problem Behavior: A School Problem with School Solutions Student social behavior is one of the strongest predictors of future academic success (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000). Indeed, students with emotional and behavioral difficulties have arguably the poorest school and post-school outcomes among school age children and youth (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). Nationally representative and other large-scale longitudinal studies have indicated that students with emotional and behavioral difficulties, including students with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (EBD) are significantly more likely to experience a range of poor outcomes including academic failure, arrest and incarceration, and school dropout (Blackorby et al. 2005; Newman, Wagner, Cameto, Knokey, & Shaver, 2010; Walker et al., 2004). While a systematic, national study of the extent of this problem has not occurred, a recent synthesis of epidemiological studies estimates that between 14 and 20% of youth experience mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders (NRC & IOM, 2009). In higher risk communities characterized by poverty and low social capital, these estimates are even higher (Cooley-Strickland, Quille, Griffin, Stuart, Bradshaw, & Furr-Holden, 2009; NRC & IOM, 2009; Oswald, Coutinho, & Best, 2002). Unfortunately, only 1-2% of students with EBD receive Special Education services under the federal Special Education category of Emotional Disturbance (Maag & Katsiyannis, 2008; Walker et al., 2004). Although many students who make up this 14-20% of youth may not meet eligibility for Special Education services, this statistic indicates that many children with social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties may not be receiving adequate school-based supports. Fortunately, it has been found that schools placing a significant emphasis on the social behavior of students and the school’s social culture prevent problem behaviors and improve academic performance (Algozzine & Algozzine, 2009). In other words, preventing problem

5

Maine PBIS White Paper behavior in school not only improves student behavior, it is also associated with the academic achievement of all students. PBIS, MTSS and the Public Health Model of Prevention PBIS is based on the public health model of prevention (Walker et al., 2004). Beyond the schoolhouse doors, such models have been used to prevent numerous deleterious outcomes in children and adults and promote positive life outcomes including smoking cessation, accident and injury prevention, substance abuse, child maltreatment, and heart disease (Gielen, Sleet, & DiClemente, 2006). The public health model of prevention dates back to the 1950’s (NRC & IOM, 2009). Originally, the terms primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention were used to delineate different levels of prevention. Beginning in the 1980’s and fully conceptualized in the Institute of Medicine’s 1994 report on mental health prevention, the terms universal, selected and indicated prevention replaced the previous terms in some settings (NRC & IOM, 2009). These terms are still in use today. Universal prevention refers to strategies for an entire population (e.g., an entire school) designed to reduce future occurrences of disorder while being cost effective and minimally invasive. Selected prevention refers to strategies designed for individuals within a population found to be at elevated risk for a disorder. Indicated prevention refers to interventions designed for individuals who, based on assessment data, were found to be particularly vulnerable for a given disorder and/or already exhibiting symptoms of the condition. Using the public health model as a heuristic, MTSS have been developed in schools to prevent negative academic, social, and behavioral outcomes in school age children. In the area of social behavior, PBIS has been used to effectively support the social behavior of all students, particularly for students found to be at risk (Sugai et al., 2010). Within schools, the three levels of prevention have recently been conceptualized as three tiers instead of levels. The graphic

6

Maine PBIS White Paper below details this slight difference. Tier one is designed for every student in the school/ district. Tier one practices in MTSS are designed to support the academic and social behavior of all students, preventing problems from occurring in the first place. If tier one is effectively implemented, there will be fewer students requiring tiers two and three (see below) supports. This allows for a more efficient use of resources within a school. It is expected that 80-90% of the student population will be effectively served by tier one practices. Tier two practices are designed for students who have been found to be at risk for developing academic and social behavior difficulties. Students receiving tier two services are given efficient interventions designed to ameliorate the impact of risk factors. It is expected that 10-20% of students will require tier two supports. Tier three practices are designed for students already exhibiting significant, chronic academic or behavioral difficulties. Tier three interventions are individualized based on student need. It is estimated that 1-7% of students will require tier three interventions (Sugai et al., 2010).1

The Universal level is for all students, even those students who also receive tiers two or three supports.

Used with permission from www.pbis.org

1

It is important to note that this heuristic does not automatically imply that the 1-7% of students will require special Education or those students not in the 1-7% of students exhibiting chronic or intense problem behavior wouldn’t qualify for Special Education. 7

Maine PBIS White Paper Evidence-Based Practices and PBIS One of the most critical features of PBIS is its evidence base. Evidence-based practices refer to practices that, through rigorous research, have a proven track record of delivering the desired effect. Schools implementing evidence-based practices can be more confident that what they are doing is working, provided it is being implemented as intended. What is an Evidence-Based Practice? According to Maine Chapter 101 and the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), evidence-based practices (also referred to as scientifically-based) are those that are defined as “(A) research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and (B) includes research that — (i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; (ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; (iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators; (iv) is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls; (v) ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and (vi) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review” (bolded faced font is added for emphasis). Evidence-Based PBIS Practices With implementation occurring in over 16,000 schools across the nation, PBIS is based on almost 20 years of scientifically-based research indicating that schools implementing PBIS with fidelity show improved academic achievement test scores, reduced problem behavior as

8

Maine PBIS White Paper measured by suspension and office discipline referral data, increased time spent teaching and learning, improved perceptions of school safety and lower rates of burnout among teachers (Algozzine & Algozzine, 2007; Bohanon, Fenning, Carney, Minnis-Kim, Anderson-Harris, Moroz, & Pigott, 2006; Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg,2005; Muscott, Mann, & LeBrun, 2008; Simonsen, Eber, Black, Sugai, Lewandowski, Sims, Myers, In press). Many of these results have been found using research studies that employed what is considered the “gold standard” of empirical research- randomized controlled trials (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Horner, Sugai, Smolkowski, Eber, Nakasato, Todd, & Esperanza, 2009). What is a randomized controlled trial? According to the U.S. Department of Education, randomized controlled trials (or RCTs) are the preferred method for evaluating the true effects of a school program or intervention. RCTs refer to research designs where two or more groups of students are randomly assigned to an intervention group or to a control group. One can be more confident that the results found from RCTs are more accurate given that the students receiving the intervention were randomly assigned to receive the intervention. Certainly interventions studied with methods other than RCTs are still worth out attention. However, RCTs are needed to confirm that results found in non-RCT studies were not due simply to chance. More information about RCTS can be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/guide_pg5.html

PBIS is not a program or curriculum. Rather, it is a framework for providing effective behavioral supports to all students. This framework has been carefully crafted by national experts in the field of PBIS over many years and includes four core features: outcomes, systems, data, and practices (Sugai et al., 2010). Outcomes refer to the social, academic, and behavioral outcomes that the school values and hopes all students attain (e.g., meeting academic benchmarks, reducing behavioral difficulties etc.). Systems refer to the organizational structures at the school and district level that will support the ongoing implementation of PBIS and related evidence-based practices. Practices refer to the selection of evidence-based practices (see below)

9

Maine PBIS White Paper that schools will adopt as part of their system of PBIS. Data refer to the information that a school will collect, summarize and analyze to ensure that the PBIS system is optimally effective for all students.

(used with permission from www.pbis.org) Like the Response to Intervention model, PBIS includes the implementation of interventions across all three tiers (Sugai et al., 2010). Tiers two and three include evidencebased practices designed for students who are at risk for developing problem behavior (tier two) or students already exhibiting chronic, intense problem behavior (tier three). The focus on this paper is on tier one. There are four reasons for this focus. First, tiers two and three should not be implemented without a fully implemented, effective tier one system in place. Second, the core features of tier one of PBIS are the same across schools regardless of structure, grade span (elementary, middle, or high school), or demographics. Additionally, effective implementation of PBIS at the schoolwide, tier one level has been found to be a multi-year process (3-5 years) with the first year typically dedicated to planning for implementation. Finally, evidence of the effects of PBIS on student academic achievement strongly suggest that implementing high quality

10

Maine PBIS White Paper systems of PBIS is associated with significant increases in student achievement. While PBIS is a flexible framework that is designed to fit the local culture of a given school, all schools implement similar practices. Tier one PBIS systems and practices include: 1. Establishing 3-5 schoolwide behavioral expectations: Schools implementing PBIS with fidelity have 3-5 positively stated behavioral expectations that apply to all students, all staff, and all school settings. For example, a school may establish the expectations of “Be Safe, Be Respectful, and Be Responsible.” Establishing schoolwide expectations is important for maintaining a consistent social culture across the school. 2. Teaching 3-5 schoolwide expectations: While developing 3-5 expectations is an important first step, research has shown that students (grades K-12) need to be directly taught the rules and expectations they are expected to follow. Thus, a school’s expectations are taught to all students in all settings in a developmentally appropriate manner. In our example above, a school would teach all students what it means to be safe, respectful and responsible in settings such as the cafeteria, hallway, playground, and classroom. 3. Rewarding students who behave in a manner consistent with schoolwide expectations: Decades of research on school behavior indicates that systematically and consistently reinforcing and rewarding expected behavior is one of the surest ways to ensure that students will exhibit social behavior consistent with schoolwide social norms. 4. Consistently and proactively correcting problem behavior: In addition to focusing on positive expectations and rewards, PBIS includes the implementation of systems that consistently and proactively enforce rules across the school setting. In systems of PBIS, students violating behavioral expectations are given consistent, logical consequences that are intended to support the student in behaving in a manner more consistent with behavioral expectations in the future. 5. Using data-based decision making: The above components of PBIS have proven to be efficient, effective ways for creating environments that are conducive to learning. However, it has been found that using data for decision making is of equal importance. PBIS schools use data to determine the extent to which they are implementing the components of PBIS and how their PBIS program can be improved. Specifically, schools use data systems such as the School-wide Information System (www.swis.org) to summarize and analyze school discipline data to make effective decisions related to their PBIS system. 6. Employing a team-based approach: Finally, PBIS is founded on the premise that effective decisions are made using a team-based approach. Schools and districts implementing PBIS effectively rely on leadership teams that are representative of the school staff to make ongoing data-informed decisions related to their system of PBIS (Colvin, 2007). 7. District support: Formal, explicit district support is an essential component for effective, sustainable systems of PBIS. Districts supportive of PBIS in schools

11

Maine PBIS White Paper provide resources for implementation including funding, training, coaching, and ongoing evaluation support. The above seven elements are found in all of the research studies which document PBIS efficacy. In this respect, they are essential and non-negotiable elements which must be present for true implementation of PBIS. Schools not implementing the above components as described are not implementing PBIS. Simply calling something PBIS because it is intended to impact student behavior is inaccurate. Anecdotally, it has been found that some schools implement specific programs within their PBIS framework that do not actually encompass PBIS practices or, in many cases, are not evidence-based (see above). Referring to such practices as evidencebased is also inaccurate. Two such practices that have received considerable attention by schools in Maine are Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS; Greene, 1998) and Restorative Justice (RJ) or Restorative Practices (RP). In the case of CPS and RJ, there are no studies on their implementation in schools that meet the requirements of an evidence-based practice (see above). In addition, neither of these practices incorporates true prevention science because they do not have Tier one, universal, components. The impact of RJ within the juvenile justice sector has been evaluated using scientifically-based research. Results indicated that RJ did reduce recidivism among juvenile offenders (see for example Rodriguez, 2007). However, it is inappropriate to generalize such results from a court setting to a school setting given that it was tested in a very different location (i.e., the courts) with a very specific population of youth (i.e., juvenile offenders), and evaluated reactive measures for students already demonstrating significant problems. In the case of CPS, no published studies exist detailing its use in public schools. Similarly, CPS is a reactive intervention for individuals who already demonstrate moderate to severe problems. Thus, at this time, one cannot say that either practice will impact

12

Maine PBIS White Paper student behavior in a positive way given that there is no empirical evidence documenting such outcomes in schools. The lack of evidence for practices is important because without an evidence-base it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately describe what a practice actually looks like when implemented in a school setting. Both RJ and CPS include methods designed for the needs individual students, but lack programmatic elements to use them with all of the students (universal) in a school. The lack of universal procedures and data showing the effects of practices like RJ and CPS make their use as part of PBIS extremely premature. There is simply no literature base documenting how these practices can be effectively implemented with fidelity in school settings. Thus, future research is needed to support the efficacy of implementing either practice in school settings. PBIS is a prevention model of student support and it starts with steps that must and can be used with ALL the students in a school. Thus, schools are highly encouraged to implement only those PBIS practices for which there is an evidence base and which have documented positive effects for students at the universal (primary), selected, (secondary) and indicated (tertiary) levels. Such evidence-based practices also demonstrate that they can be integrated within a school in an efficient, cost-effective manner. The State’s Role in the Implementation of PBIS As the discussion to this point indicates, there is good reason to be hopeful about the potential impact PBIS can have across schools in Maine. Many schools in the state are working to adopt and implement these evidence-based practices and enthusiasm for PBIS is growing. Additionally, for the past several years, university faculty members at three UMaine system campuses (Farmington, Orono, and USM) have been providing training and technical assistance

13

Maine PBIS White Paper to local schools and districts implementing PBIS. However, experience from other states across the nation tells us that active state department of education support and involvement is essential for continued, durable implementation and scaling-up of PBIS (Bradshaw & Pas, 2011; Kincaid et al., 2011; Sugai et al., 2010). In other words, without organizational structures in place to support durable implementation, effective PBIS is unlikely to occur. This includes the development of a state leadership team that meets regularly to plan and implement a state-wide system of PBIS. The federally funded center on State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-Based Practices (www.scalingup.org), or SISEP, has partnered with the National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (www.pbis.org) to delineate how effective implementation of PBIS at the state level occurs. This work is based on the best available evidence on implementation science. State and district leaders are highly encouraged to examine the SISEP website to gain an understanding of the critical role state leadership plays in the implementation of evidence-based practices in schools http://www.scalingup.org/learning-zone/science-of-implementation/implementationframeworks/stages SISEP has found that it is critical for state departments of education to shape and prioritize their work around the implementation of evidence-based practices. This includes committing resources and developing state and regional expertise in implementation science and PBIS, and setting priorities related to MTSS such as PBIS. Indeed, as experts from SISEP have adeptly noted, “Prioritizing needs and initiatives is very important: Better to do a few things well with good outcomes for students than have multiple under-resourced initiatives that have little chance for success” (Fixsen, Blase, Horner, & Sugai, 2009, p. 2).” Specifically, the state leadership team is charged with developing regional networks to support district implementation of PBIS through continuous evaluation, ongoing training, and the identification of schools

14

Maine PBIS White Paper demonstrating exemplary PBIS practices. To help conceptualize state and local implementation of evidence-based practices, Fixsen and colleagues have used the best available evidence in implementation science (see Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005) and developed the “stages of implementation” (see box below). Inherent in these stages is the idea that any new initiative must be implemented with sufficient planning, data systems, evaluation capacity, and local expertise. In other words, policy and training, while important, will not by themselves guarantee effective, widespread use of evidence-based practices. In particular, ongoing use of data and a comprehensive evaluation plan are needed to ensure that schools and districts can continuously improve their practices.

(used with permission from www.sisep.org) Twenty-six states have an active state leadership team dedicated to state-wide PBIS implementation and over 40 states reportedly have established state PBIS leadership teams (Horner, personal communication). Several states have effectively worked to implement and effectively scale-up PBIS across their states. Some of these states include: Florida: http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/ Illinois: http://www.pbisillinois.org/ Michigan: http://miblsi.cenmi.org/Home.aspx

15

Maine PBIS White Paper Maryland: http://pbismaryland.org/ Missouri: http://pbismissouri.org/ New Hampshire: http://www.nhcebis.seresc.net/ Vermont: http://pbisvermont.org/ Oregon: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=1389 Some of the states listed above have been implementing PBIS at the state level for several years (e.g., Illinois, Maryland) while others are in earlier stages of implementation (e.g., Vermont). What is important to note about these states is the fact that they have state department of education support for implementation of PBIS. Departments of education run some of these state PBIS initiatives while institutes of higher education run others through contractual agreements with the state department of education. In either case, state involvement has been critical. In many cases, state departments of education have supported PBIS through a general commitment to the implementation of evidence-based practices (e.g., Oregon). A recent study (Kincaid et al., 2011) analyzing seven effective state-wide PBIS implementation efforts from around the country indicated that states that successfully implemented and scaled-up implementation of PBIS used the following processes:

“(a) administrative leadership and funding, (b) development of local training and coaching capability, (c) development of personnel with technical skills in the practice, and (d) development and use of a formal system for evaluating both fidelity of implementation and impact on valued outcomes (p.1).”

Furthermore, states in this study did not rely on developing a state system from scratch. Rather, local experts, often at Universities, had been supporting schools with the implementation of their system of PBIS for some time before official state involvement occurred. State and district leadership teams develop and sustain systems of PBIS by: garnering dedicated funding, having visibility around the state/district, attaining political support from key

16

Maine PBIS White Paper leaders and stakeholders, and identifying policies that support PBIS implementation. Using these components effectively allows the leadership team to provide the tools to build capacity with schools and districts to implement PBIS. Capacity building requires training, coaching, evaluation, and behavioral expertise (Kincaid et al., 2011; Sugai et al., 2010). These functions of the state leadership team are displayed in the figure below.

(used with permission from www.pbis.org)

A look at the state PBIS websites listed above indicates that Maine has several strong examples of how to proceed with its own statewide system of PBIS. While such exemplars will be critical as Maine moves towards effective behavioral support for all students (as required in Maine Chapter 101) it is also important to have an understanding of what is already in place related to PBIS implementation in Maine. Currently, the following is occurring in Maine: •

A state technical assistance center on PBIS (http://usm.maine.edu/smart/mainetac/pbis.html), housed at the University of Southern Maine with collaborators at the University of Maine Farmington and University of Maine, has been established. With Pat Red as its coordinator, this center is officially recognized by the national center on PBIS (www.pbis.org) as Maine’s technical assistance center on PBIS.

17

Maine PBIS White Paper • •

• •

A statewide PBIS conference has been held each year since 2010 at the Augusta Civic Center. Each year, this conference has drawn over 300 participants from schools from across the state from Aroostook to York counties. State department of education grants for PBIS have been distributed and have been used for the implementation of PBIS across 5 professional development regions in eastern and northern Maine and one school district in western Maine. It is important to note that university faculty members associated with the technical assistance center have provided training to schools provided through these grants. Graduate level courses and certificate programs focusing on PBIS have been developed at the University of Maine and the University of Southern Maine Numerous districts and schools across the state have contracted with state PBIS leaders at USM, UMO, and UMF to facilitate their implementation of PBIS

Conclusion Based on the experiences of other states, Maine is in a strong position to develop an effective system of PBIS that is efficient and durable. In addition to the local expertise to support implementation and the local experiences of schools implementing PBIS, state regulations have provided an environment where schools may be more compelled to establish systems of PBIS. These regulations include Chapter 101, which requires General Education Interventions (including positive behavioral supports) and the use of evidence-based practices. It is helpful to see that progress has been made with the early implementation of PBIS in Maine schools. However, continuing to support PBIS implementation in over 100 schools with dwindling resources in a non-comprehensive manner would be difficult to scale up and simply be unsustainable. The next phase of Maine’s PBIS infrastructure needs to include direct support from the Maine DOE as well as continuation of the partnerships among faculty in the University of Maine System. Only with a coordinated and consistent PBIS infrastructure that incorporates the seven essential elements outlined above can Maine’s PBIS efforts be successful for all students.

18

Maine PBIS White Paper Producing graduates that are college and career ready undoubtedly means producing citizens that display appropriate, effective social behavioral skills. PBIS is the only evidencebased model for improving school social behavior on a universal and state-wide scale. While considerable enthusiasm for, and expertise in, PBIS exists across Maine, it is critical that Maine DOE officials consider how they can provide a host environment for schools and districts that supports the ongoing, effective implementation and scaling-up of PBIS in Maine. This includes prioritizing initiatives, identifying existing resources, and developing an efficient, effective plan for implementation.

19

Maine PBIS White Paper Recommendations Recommendations for Schools 1. District Support: If you are considering implementing PBIS in your school, garner district support first. Without district support, ongoing implementation and scaling up of PBIS is very difficult. This support includes the commitment of resources to implement PBIS. Schools already implementing PBIS should continue to ensure that district leaders support its implementation. 2. Seven Essentials of PBIS: Focus on the seven essential elements of PBIS (see page 11 above). Prioritizing behavioral support systems around the seven elements is an efficient use of resources given that they have been found to be associated with the best outcomes within systems of PBIS. 3. Evaluation: Ensure that your system of PBIS is independently evaluated on a regular basis (yearly). This includes monitoring the fidelity of implementation as well as student outcomes. 4. Technical Assistance: Make sure that your school or district has access to technical assistance from personnel affiliated with the state technical assistance center (see TA members below). Effective implementation of PBIS requires ongoing facilitation by people with behavioral expertise, which is often delivered directly or indirectly by such personnel. Recommendations for Districts 1. Prioritize: Districts are highly encouraged to adopt PBIS given its effectiveness and the fact that it meets the Maine Chapter 101 regulatory requirement of “General Education Interventions” for behavior. However, before beginning implementation of PBIS in schools, district leadership should prioritize it as one of their top improvement goals. This will allow for the dedication of scarce resources. 2. Coordination: While the actual implementation of PBIS occurs in individual schools, district coordination is essential. A district leadership team that supports the ongoing coaching, training, and evaluation of PBIS across schools in a systematic manner does this coordination. This allows for the district to implement PBIS by using scarce resources more efficiently. 3. Technical Assistance: Contact someone from the Maine PBIS Technical Assistance Center (see below) to support your district’s implementation of PBIS. Effective implementation of PBIS requires ongoing facilitation by people with behavioral expertise, which is often delivered directly or indirectly by such personnel. Recommendations for the Maine Department of Education 1. Alignment with other state initiatives: The PBIS model works best when it is integrated and aligned with other key initiatives. State department of education leaders should consider how PBIS and RTI can be integrated within its current goals as stated in

20

Maine PBIS White Paper Education Evolving: Maine’s Plan for Putting Learners First. Integration of PBIS and RTI may be most feasible in the components of the plan discussing Special Education, learning-centered instruction, and/or comprehensive school and community supports. 2. Leadership: State departments of education support school and district implementation of PBIS (directly or indirectly) by developing the capacity to provide ongoing training, coaching, and evaluation. Schools and districts are more likely to effectively implement, sustain, and scale-up PBIS with state leadership in these areas. To facilitate this scalingup process, state DOE leaders are encouraged to employ drivers and stages of implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based practices (www.scalingup.org). One example can be found in the attached article (Bradshaw & Pas, 2011) describing Maryland’s state-wide PBIS efforts. 3. Coordination and collaboration with the Maine PBIS TA center: The Maine PBIS Technical Assistance Center includes professionals from three UMaine system campuses who have provided training, coaching, technical assistance, and evaluation services to PBIS schools and districts in Maine for several years. Ongoing coordination and collaboration between the Maine DOE and Maine PBIS center will help to ensure that schools and districts across Maine can rely on a state-wide infrastructure that provides effective support in a timely, efficient manner consistent with state regulations (i.e., Chapter 101 General Education Interventions) and the latest evidence on PBIS. Maine DOE officials and other education leaders are also encouraged to review the attached document, Multi-Tiered System of Supports and Response to Intervention (RtI) Domains of Educational Practice for Higher Education Teacher Preparation by Prasse, Morrison, and colleagues. 4. Commitment to evidence-based practices: State and federal regulations require the use of evidence-based practices. Such policies, while critical, require more formal support from the state department of education to be implemented at scale. Supporting evidencebased practices includes dedicating time and resources only to practices found to have been proven effective through rigorous research, including randomized controlled trials (see p. 8-9 above).

21

Maine PBIS White Paper Maine PBIS Center Technical Assistance Providers University of Southern Maine Pat Red, State PBIS Coordinator- [email protected] Rebekah Bickford- [email protected] University of Maine James Artesani- [email protected] University of Maine at Farmington Brian Cavanaugh- ([email protected])

Helpful Resources Maine Technical Assistance Center on PBIS http://usm.maine.edu/smart/mainetac/pbis.html National Technical Assistance Center on PBIS www.pbis.org School-wide Information System www.swis.org State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-Based Practices www.scalingup.org National Center on Response to Intervention www.rti4success.org

22

Maine PBIS White Paper Reviewers The following people reviewed and endorsed the views expressed in this white paper. Paul Johnson, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Maine Presque Isle Karen Smith, Instructor of Special Education, University of Maine Farmington Janet Spector, Associate Professor of Special Education, University of Maine Mark Steege, Professor of Educational and School Psychology, University of Southern Maine

23

Maine PBIS White Paper

References Algozzine, B. & Algozzine, K. (2009). Facilitating academic achievement through schoolwide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Behavior Support (pp. 51-550). New York: Springer. Algozzine, K. & Algozzine, B. (2007). Classroom instructional ecology and school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 29-47. Blackorby, J., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Davies, E., Levine, Pl, Newman, L., Marder, C., & Sumi, C. (2005). Engagement, academics, social adjustment and independence: the achievements of elementary and middle school students with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Bohanon H., Fenning, P., Carney, K., Minnis-Kim, M., Anderson-Harris, S., Moroz, K., & Pigott, T. (2006). Schoolwide application of positive behavior support in an urban high school: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 131-145. Bradshaw, C., Mitchell, M., & Leaf, P. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Student Outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133-148. Bradshaw, C. & Pas, E. (2011). A statewide scale up of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: A description of the development of systems of support and analysis of adoption and implementation. School Psychology Review, 40, 530-548. Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302-306. Colvin, G. (2007). 7 steps for developing a proactive schoolwide discipline plan. Thousand

24

Maine PBIS White Paper Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cooley-Strickland, M., Quille, T., Griffin, R., Stuart, E., Bradshaw, C., & Furr-Holden, D. (2009). Community violence and youth: Affect, behavior, substance use, and academics. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 12, 127-156. Fixsen, D.L., Blase, K.A., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2009). Readiness for change. Scaling Up Brief #3. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, State Implementation and Scaling Up of Evidence Based Practices (SISEP). Retrieved from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~sisep/docs/SISEP_Brief_3_Readiness_2009.pdf Fixsen, D., Naoom, S., Blase, K., Friedman, R., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, The Louis de la Parte Florida Mental health Institute: Department of Child and Family Studies. Florida Positive Behavior Support Project (2011). Implementing a multi-tiered system of support for behavior: Recommended practices for school and district leaders. University of South Florida: Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project. Gielen, A., Sleet, D., & DiClemente, R. (2006). Injury and violence prevention: Behavioral science theories, methods, and applications. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Greene, R. W. (1998). The explosive child: A new approach for understanding and parenting easily frustrated, "chronically inflexible" children. New York: HarperCollins. Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133-144.

25

Maine PBIS White Paper Kincaid, D., Horner, R., Sugai, G., Lewis, T., Eber, L., Barrett, S., Dickey, C. et al. (2011). Scaling up school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: the experiences of seven states with documented success. National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Luiselli, J., Putnam, R., Handler, M., & Feinberg, A. (2005). Whole-school positive behaviour support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25, 183-198. Maag, J. & Katsiyannis, A. (2008). The medical model to block eligibility for students with EBD: A response-to-intervention alternative. Behavioral Disorders, 33, 184-194. Muscott, H., Mann, E., & LeBrun, M. (2008). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports in New Hampshire: Effects of large-scale implementation of schoolwide Positive Behavior Support on student discipline and academic achievement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 190-205. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R. Knokey, A., & Shaver, D. (2010). Comparisons across time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/reports/2010_09/index.html. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth, and Young Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions. Mary Ellen O’Connell, Thomas Boat, and Kenneth E. Warner, Editors. Board on Children,

26

Maine PBIS White Paper Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Oswald, D., Coutinho, M., & Best, A. (2002). Community and school predictors of overrepresentation of minority children in Special Education. In D. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.). Racial inequity in Special Education (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 355-379. Simonsen, B., Eber, L., Black, A., Sugai, G. Lewandowski, H., Sims, B., & Myers, D. (In press). Illinois statewide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Evolution and impact on student outcomes across years. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. Sugai, G., Horner, R., Algozzine, R., Barrett, S., Lewis, T., Anderson, C., Bradley, R., Choi, J., Dunlap, G., Eber, L., George, H., Kincaid, D., McCart, A., Nelson, M., Newcomer, L., Putnam, R., Riffel, L., Rovins, M., Sailor, W., & Simonsen, B. (2010). Schoolwide positive behavior support: Implementers’ blueprint and self-assessment. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Walker, H., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. (2004). Antisocial behavior in schools: Evidence-based practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

27