Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

DRAFT (January 2003)

MARYLAND’S POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS & SUPPORTS (PBIS) PLAN

Maryland State Department of Education

of 21 DRAFT (January 2003)

Table of Contents

Background and History of the Maryland Initiative

Purpose of the Maryland Initiative

Effective Behavioral Support Approach

Maryland Objectives and Outcomes

Maryland Administrative Functions

Maryland Implementation Design Five Year Implementation Time Line

Implementation Elements

Team Training

Coaches

Trainer Training

Administrator Training/Briefing

Parent Training/Briefing

Website

School-wide Information System (SWIS)

Leadership and Stakeholders Groups

Year 1

Maryland’s Evaluation and Accountability plan

Maryland’s Technical assistance and Consultative Supports

Supporting References

MARYLAND POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS & SUPPORTS INITIATIVE

Background

With the recent passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in January 2002 (NCLB), our nation stands on the threshold of implementing the most important federal education law since the initial enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. As a result of its passage, a clear message is reverberating throughout our nation. The message will require public school systems to ensure that each student receives a high quality meaningful education. The standard for successful implementation of this law is the acceleration of academic achievement for all students and the elimination of achievement gaps among children. Goal 4 of NCLB states: “All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning”.

Schools are important environments in which children, families, educators, and community members have opportunities to learn, teach, and grow. For nearly 180 days each year and six hours each day, educators strive to provide students, learning environments that are stable, positive, and predictable. These environments have the potential to provide positive adult and peer role models, multiple and regular opportunities to experience academic and social success, and social exchanges that foster enduring peer and adult relationships.

Despite these positive attributes, teachers, students, families, and community members face significant contemporary challenges. Every year schools are being asked to do more with fewer resources. New initiatives to improve literacy, enhance character, accommodate rapidly advancing technologies, and facilitate school-to-work transitions are added to the educator’s workday. Schools are being asked to achieve new and more results, yet seldom are allowed to cease work on the growing list of initiatives.

Studies show that challenging behavior has accelerated in schools. Besides affecting education, school behavior problems affect society. Research shows that high school dropouts commit 82 percent of crimes in the U.S.; within three years after leaving school, 70 percent of antisocial youth have been arrested. Schools try to stem the challenging behavior with counseling and psychotherapy, which, according to numerous studies, have proven to be the least effective interventions in curbing challenging and violent behavior. Current school strategies also use exclusion and punishment to control behavior. These strategies focus on “bad” students rather than on the school structure.

Maryland’s Initiative

In 1998 The Maryland Sate Department of Education (MSDE) and the Sheppard Pratt Health Systems (SPHS) began to collaborate on the concept of the mental health community working with schools. A team was formed which included members of MSDE and SPHS. In July 1999 MSDE/SPHS conducted the initial workshop for PBIS, “Tough Times – Tough Kids”. This event consisted of a two-day workshop conducted by Dr. George Sugai from the University of Oregon. At that time, Maryland had not anticipated the potential or the enthusiasm that has greeted PBIS. Fourteen elementary school-based teams representing 9 local school systems (LSS) were trained during the July 1999 workshop. They were provided with the ability to:  Secure commitments to the process from administrators and school staff,  Review the status of behavior support and disciplinary practices in their schools, and  Develop, adapt, and implement action plans to address the unique needs of their building’s students and staff.

In April 2000 MSDE conducted a two-day workshop. The training on April 25 provided local school systems (LSS) Assistant Superintendents, supervisors of pupil services, supervisors of special education, and other stakeholders information on best practices and current research concerning the issues of prevention and early behavioral interventions in schools. The first day emphasized capacity building at the school level with a focus on concrete activities to support safe, nonviolent environments that optimize the potential for learning. The second day focused on the school-based teams that had been trained in July of 1999. One of the workshop’s goals was to provide the LSSs with the most current information about PBIS, in order to create an environment where they would make informed decisions about school-based teams from their systems participating in the Summer 2000 Institute.

Having recognized the importance of the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support Program (PBIS) initiative, MSDE committed to conduct a Summer Institute in 2000. Our work with Dr. Sugai led us to look at ways to expand this initiative to involve all 24 LSSs. Dr. Sugai returned in July 2000, and 24 new teams were trained. Additionally, 31 “Behavior Support Coaches” were trained. It is their task to facilitate the efficient implementation of PBIS is their assigned schools and to provide leadership within their respective LSS to continue to expand the PBIS initiative. MSDE also provided follow-up training for the 14 teams that were trained in July 1999. A total of 38 teams had been trained, representing 21 LSSs. Before Dr. Sugai would commit to returning to work with our schools and coaches, he asked that we agree to commit to working with PBIS for FIVE YEARS.

In April 2001 a second forum was conducted at which LSS representatives were again provided information about PBIS. The invitees included representatives of all 24 systems, and leaders from schools who might be interested in implementing PBIS at their schools. In July 2001 the second annual PBIS Institute was held at SPHS. 37 new school

of 21 DRAFT (January 2003) teams were trained representing 22 LSS. An additional 17 Behavior Support Coaches were trained to work with the new and existing schools. And most recently, in July 2002, 53 additional teams were trained long with 35 new Behavior Support coaches. A list of trained teams is attached as Appendix A. WHAT IS PBIS ?

PBIS is a process for creating safer and more effective schools. PBIS is a systems approach to enhancing the capacity of schools to educate all children by developing research-based, school wide, and classroom discipline systems. The process focuses on improving a school’s ability to teach and support positive behavior for all students. Rather than a prescribed program, PBIS provides systems foe schools to design, implement, and evaluate effective school-wide, classroom, non-classroom, and student specific discipline plans. PBIS includes school-wide procedures and processes intended for:  all students, all staff and in all settings  non-classroom settings within the school environment  individual classrooms and teachers, and  individual student supports for the estimated 3-7% of students who present the most challenging behaviors.

PBIS IS NOT a program or a curriculum, IT IS a team-based process for systemic problem solving, planning, and evaluation. It is an approach to creating an environment within which school-based teams of educators are provided training in:  Systems change  Effective management principles and practices; and  Applications of research-validated instruction and management practices.

WHY PBIS? Need and Context for School-wide Positive Behavior Support Although American schools represent one of the safest places for children, demands for safer schools have increased as result of more attention on acts of school violence, playground “bullies,” and student victimization. In fact, concerns about discipline and problem behaviors in schools are not new. Over the past 20 years, fighting, violence, vandalism, truancy, lack of discipline, and drug use have been among the top concerns of the general public and teachers (1998 Kappan/Gallup Poll). In addition, efforts to improve educational services and opportunities for students with disabilities and problem behavior have increased, especially in general education settings (P.L. 94-142, IDEA 1997, U.S. Department of Education). Thus, management and control of problem behavior regardless of whether the student does or does not have a disability has drawn increased attention from schools, families, and communities.

However, debates continue regarding where and whether students with severe antisocial behavior should be educated in general education settings. When teachers experience

of 21 DRAFT (January 2003) situations in which students are violent toward their peers or adults, are insubordinate and non-compliant, run away from school, or disrupt the learning of others, their basic reaction is to engage in actions that decrease or remove such aversive situations (Gunter et al., 1993; Gunter et al., 1994; Jack et al., 1996; Shores et al., 1993).

Most codes of conduct and discipline handbooks detail consequence sequences designed to “teach” these students that they have violated a school rule, and that their “choice” of behaviors will not be tolerated. When occurrences of rule-violating behavior increase in frequency and intensity, (a) monitoring and surveillance are increased to “catch” future occurrences of problem behavior, (b) rules and sanctions for problem behavior are restated and reemphasized, (c) the continuum of punishment consequences for repeated rule-violations are extended, (d) efforts are directed toward increasing the consistency with which school staff react to displays of antisocial behavior, and (e) “bottom-line” consequences are accentuated to inhibit future displays of problem behavior. However, when these types of solutions are used with students with established histories of severe antisocial behavior, increases in the intensity and frequency of antisocial behavior are likely (Mayer, 1995; Mayer & Butterworth, 1979; Mayer et al., 1983).

At the school and district levels, reactive responses to occurrences of antisocial behavior also are likely. For example, when significant acts of school violence are experienced (e.g., shooting, bomb threats, illegal drug activity), schools direct attention toward: (a) Establishing zero tolerance policies; (b) Hiring security personnel; (c) Adding surveillance cameras and metal detectors; (d) Adopting school uniform policies; (e) Using in- and out- of school detention, suspension, and expulsion; and (f) Establishing alternative school placements and programs (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).

Ironically, the effectiveness of these policy and structural responses has not been adequately studied, demonstrated, and validated.

Increases in the uses of these reactive individual teacher and school responses are predictable because they often are associated with relatively immediate (albeit short- term) reductions in serious problem behavior (McCord, 1995; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). However, alone they have been ineffective in creating more sustained positive school climates that prevent the development and occurrence of antisocial behavior in schools. In the long term, reactive and punishment-based responses create a false sense of security. Environments of authoritarian control are established. Antisocial behavior events are inadvertently reinforced. Most importantly, the school’s primary function to provide opportunities for teaching and academic engagement is decreased.

By themselves, these reactive responses are insufficient to meet the challenge of NCLB Goal 4: “All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning”. Numerous sources have advocated for the adoption of more proactive (positive and preventive) approaches to shape individual and school-wide discipline responses to create safe and positive school climates, and to maximize teaching time and learning opportunities. (e.g., Center for the Study and Prevention of School Violence, Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, American Psychological Association, Center on Effective Collaboration and Practice, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, Office of Special Education Programs). A recent report on the prevention of school violence published by the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General and prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that schools emphasize prevention-based strategies that, for example, (a) break-up the contingencies that maintain antisocial behavior networks, (b) increase the rates of and opportunities for academic success, (c) establish and sustain positive school and classroom climates, and (d) give priority to an agenda of primary prevention (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Similar recommendations for a prevention-based response to school violence have been put forth by leading researchers (Elliott, Hamburg, & Williams, 1998; Gottfredson, 1987; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Hybl, 1993; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Skroban, 1996; Guerra & Williams, 1996; Mayer, 1995; Skiba & Deno, 1991; Walker, et al., 1996).

Instead of a kaleidoscope of individual behavior management plans, PBIS assists schools in moving toward school-wide behavior systems that address the entire school:  the classroom,  areas outside the classroom (hallways, restrooms, cafeteria, playgrounds), and  the individual students with challenging behaviors.

These systems define school rules and expectations, provide training about the rules, and offer feedback through rewards and corrections.

The Maryland Model

The Maryland PBIS Initiative is a collaboration of the Maryland State Department of Education’s Division of Student and School Services, the Division of Special Education and Sheppard Pratt Health System, a non-profit behavioral health care system. A State Leadership Team has been in place since 1999, and representatives from MSDE and SPHS are co-leaders for the initiative. The leadership team has served as the infrastructure since 1999. Drs. George Sugai and Terri Lewis-Palmer from the University of Oregon’s Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support Technical Assistance Center have provided training and consultation for our state-wide initiative.

The second level of implementation for Maryland is the designation of a “point of contact” within each LSS. In most cases, this point of contact is the Director of Student Services. The point of contact provides a focus within each LSS, and facilitates

of 21 DRAFT (January 2003) communication between the state leadership team and all other participants within the LSS.

Next, Maryland’s Behavior Support Coaches provide frequent on-site support to participating school teams. Each local school system has identified existing personnel who have current roles or knowledge related to behavior and discipline. These personnel include school psychologists, behavior specialists, special education personnel, counselors, social workers, and staff development specialists. PBIS coaches assist with implementation by assisting school teams with system, data, and practice related issues related to implementation and sustainment of PBIS. Participating Coaches will be able to:  Prepare teams for training  Support team leaders/administrators  Assist with faculty buy-in  Support and/or facilitate PBIS school team meeting  Assist with data collection and analysis  Guide data-based decision making  Revise current strategies  Support us of research-based practices  Provide training/consultation with functional based behavior assessment and behavior intervention plans, and  Provide training/consultation with classroom management techniques.

VISION: All schools in Maryland will adopt and sustain research validated practices to ensure that all students are educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning

MISSION To establish positive comprehensive systems of behavior support for all students, families, and teachers to maximize student achievement. THE PLAN

In the following pages we will describe how Maryland plans to achieve this vision of PBIS.

Objectives:

1. Establish a sustainable system for leadership and management of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. 2. Establish a sustainable system of leadership and management of Positive Behavior and Support within all Maryland Local School Systems. 3. Establish a comprehensive system of proactive school-wide discipline and behavior support for all teachers, students and their families in Maryland Schools. 4. Establish a comprehensive system of specialized positive behavior support for students with ever social behavior challenges and their families. 5. Establish a comprehensive system of pre-service staff development on general and school-wide classroom management practices for all school personnel. 6. Establish marketing tools (products) to promote awareness in Maryland. 7. Establish a formal system of evaluation to monitor effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of Maryland PBIS implementation and to guide decision making.

The matrices at appendix B provide timelines and strategies for reaching the vision of …. We clearly recognize that there are some roadblocks/challenges to our (goals). Appendix __ addresses these challenges. It is our belief that by identifying these issues we can continuously prioritize our resources to ensue that our goal is reached by school year 2005-2006.

of 21 DRAFT (November 2002)

Performance Measure 1: Establish a sustainable system for leadership and management of positive behavioral interventions and supports in the Maryland State Department of Education PERFORMANCE INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TARGET REMARKS 1.1 MSDE/Sheppard Partnership 1.1 1999 – On-Going Accomplished 1.2 Appointment of Full time state-wide coordinator 1.2 2000

1.3 Appointment of State Leadership Team 1.3 1999-ongoing 1.4 Endorsement by State Superintendent 1.4 June 2003 Briefings/Updates to be presented. 1.5 Endorsement by Local superintendents 1.5 May 2003 1.6 Endorsement by State Board 1.6 June 2003 1.7 Endorsement by State Legislature 1.7 2004 1.8 Funding/Resources Allocated(5 Year Budget) 1.8 Ongoing Presently, year to year budgeting. Not yet a line item on the MSDE budget. 1.9 School Wide Information System (SWIS) 1.9 2001 – 1 installers/facilitators trained 2002 - 5

Performance Measure 2: Establish a sustainable system of leadership and management of PBIS in all LSSs. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TARGET REMARKS 2.1 Designate LSS Point of Contact 2.1 2000 Accomplished

2.2 PBIS Coaches Cadre (At least one coach for 2.2 2000 - Ongoing every three schools) 2.3 Regional PBIS Coordinators 2.3 2004 Will need job descriptions and resource commitments

Performance Measure 3: Establish a comprehensive system of proactive school-wide discipline and behavior support for all teachers, students and their families in Maryland schools. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TARGET REMARKS 3.1 Number of Maryland Schools that have PBIS 3.1 2000-38 schools teams 2001-75 schools 2002-100 schools 2003- 150 schools 2004- 200 schools 3.2 Annual Spring Forum 3.2 March or April Annually Invite principals of prospective new schools 3.3 Annual team training 3.3 On Going Include returning teams 3.4 On-Going professional Development 3.4 2003 SHIP (?) Opportunities 3.5 PBIS Training Manuals (school-wide, classroom 3.5 2002 management, individual student, parents)

Performance Measure 4: Establish a comprehensive system of specialized positive behavior support for students with severe social behavior challenges and their families. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TARGET REMARKS 4.1 Functional Behavior Assessment- competence in 4.1 On Going 2000- 30 behavior support coaches all PBIS schools Trained personnel (coaches, receive FBA training school psychologists, special educators) 2001-90 school psychologists trained at Annual MSPA Conference 2002- ? 4.2 Professional Development Opportunities 4.2 On Going

Performance Measure 5: Establish a comprehensive system of pre-service and in-service staff development on general and school- wide and classroom management practices for all school personnel. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TARGET REMARKS 5.1 PBIS content in general and special education pre- 5.1 2005 service curriculum

Performance Measure 6: Establish marketing tools to promote PBIS awareness in MD PERFORMANCE INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TARGET REMARKS 6.1 PBIS Brochure 6.2 PBIS Newsletter 6.3 MD PBIS Website 6.4 MD Research 6.5 CD-ROM

Performance Measure 7: Establish a formal system of evaluation to monitor effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of MD PBIS implementation and to guide decision-making. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TARGET REMARKS

7.1 School-Wide Evaluation Tools (SET)  2001  2001  2001/2002 7.2 Evaluation Team Members Identified July 2001 7.3 State-wide data management system (SWIS) 7.4 Annual progress report January 2002

Appendix XX

The School-Wide Information System

The Schools-wide Information System (SWIS) is a web-based information system used to improve the behavior support in elementary, middle and high schools. The purpose of SWIS is to provide school personnel with accurate, timely, and practical information for making decisions about discipline systems. School personnel collect on-going information about discipline events in their school, and enter this information through protected, web-based software. SWIS provides summaries of this information for use n the design of effective behavior support for individual students, groups of students, or the whole student body. With accurate and timely information, school personnel can make decisions that transform schools into safe, orderly, and supportive environments.

SWIS has three elements: (a) information gathering, (b) web-based computer application for data entry and summary, and (c) use of information for decision-making. SWIS is more than just a piece of computer software. It is a practical process for helping school personnel make decisions about the (a) design and management of school-wide behavior support systems, (b) targeted interventions for problem behaviors, and/or (c) individual student behavior support systems.

SWIS is a coherent and flexible system for gathering problem behavior information. However, problem behavior categories used within a school must be mutually exclusive (one problem behavior cannot fit more than one category) and exhaustive (a category for all problem behaviors).

Problem behavior information is entered by local school personnel daily, weekly, and entering discipline data is simple fast, and accurate. The information is instantly available in tables or bar graphs (histograms). Confidentiality is protected through the use of school-specific passwords, and high quality data protection procedures.

SWIS Facilitators: Maryland has trained several people to be SWIS facilitators who can provide support to school teams for SWIS compatibility, training, and on-going use.

How do I get SWIS at my School?

First, in Maryland, your school must be part of our PBIS Initiative. Your school team must attend the July institute, and must implement PBIS during the school year. The local school system points of contact can provide more information about how to enroll in the July Institute and how to get SWIS to your school.

Appendix XX: Project Target:

MSDE, local school systems, Sheppard Pratt Health System, the Johns Hopkins University’s Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence, and the Johns Hopkins Graduate Division of Education are collaborating to evaluate the effects of the PBS program in Maryland schools. We all know that data drives program decisions. Many of you know from experience that PBIS helps to create more effective learning environments. This PBIS Project is an attempt to quantify the actual costs and outcomes of these projects so that schools and school systems can make an informed decision concerning the merits of PBIS.

MSDE, SPHS, JHU’s Center for the Prevention of School Violence, and the Graduate Division of Education has partnered with school systems and elementary schools interested in evaluating the effects of PBS over a six year period of time. Specifically we want to determine:

 if elementary schools that implement the PBS model have fewer discipline referrals than elementary schools that do not implement this model;  if students in elementary schools implementing PBS have higher academic achievement than students in other schools;  if students in elementary PBIS schools are less likely to exhibit risk factors (e.g. disruptive behavior) for substance abuse and other mental health problems;  if teachers in elementary PBS schools have higher rates of attendance and greater retention than teachers in non-PBS schools; and  if PBS is a cost effective preventative intervention that makes sense for schools to adopt as a system-wide practice.

In order to answer these questions, Project Target will obtain information on schools interested in implementing the PBIS program. Funding to support the initial year of this project has already been acquired through the combined resources of MSDE and the Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence. Funding to support subsequent years is being requested through grant proposals.

What would be the benefits to my school system of participating in this project?

For the past several years, the State of Maryland has offered school systems an opportunity for training in the PBIS model coupled with ongoing support from state level coordinators. Limited resources have restricted the number of schools able to participate each year. This project expands resources for training -- meaning that an increased number of schools in your system will have a greater opportunity to be selected for training. To help assure that the schools that are trained actually implement the program, this project will also increase supervision and guidance for PBIS school teams. Schools that implement the PBS program as a part of this project will also receive “booster” training sessions each summer during the project’s 6-year time period. Your system will also receive yearly reports that analyze the student-level and school-level data collected

of 21 DRAFT (November 2002) as part of this project for participating schools as well as summaries of data across all schools and systems.

Contact Persons for this Project:

Phil Leaf Director, JHU Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence Bloomberg School of Public Health Johns Hopkins University 624 North Broadway, Room 819 Baltimore, MD 21205 410-955-3962 FAX: 410-955-9088 email: [email protected]

Susan Keys JHU Graduate Division of Education JHU Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence 410-502-8067 FAX: 410-955-9088 email: [email protected]

Appendix XX: Behavioral Support Coaches

The purpose of establishing a state-wide network of behavior support coaches is to create a core group of highly skilled school professionals who have:  Fluency with PBIS systems and practices  The capacity to deliver a high level of PBIS technical assistance and  Capacity to sustain team in their efforts to implement PBIS practices and systems

During the Summer Institutes the coaches are provided the opportunity to learn and review:  Features of the PBS approach (purpose, rationale, implementation requirements, and processes)  Practices, systems and data of the PBIS approach  Components and operations of school-wide discipline systems  Fundamental classroom and behavior management strategies  Ways to collect and analyze data for decision making  Approaches to strategies problem solving and decision making  Effective high intensity assessment and intervention strategies for students with severe problem behavior  Methods of professional development and in-service training, and  Strategies for providing technical assistance and on-going training/support.

Opportunities for follow-up are offered with bi-monthly (September, December, February, May) coaches meetings. During these follow-ups, participants will receive training and practice on specialize topics, report on their progress with implementation and monitoring of PBIS efforts in one school, and establish a communication network among other participants.

Prerequisites: To be considered as a coach, participants should:  Be and employee of LSS that is sending a school team, with the intent to implement or expand PBIS during the following school year.  Agree to attend the entire five day PBIS Institute  Have the endorsement from the LSS to serve as a Coach for a minimum of three years  Agree to provide coaching support for one to three school  Work with the school team leader at each school to provide technical assistance in maintaining necessary records and progress reports to implement and support PBIS, and  Provide and/or facilitate ongoing follow-up and training activities as identifies and needed by the school team.

Staff being considered as Coaches should have the following experiences and skills:  Conducted small group skill training sessions with adults  Familiarity with typical classroom structures, operation, policies etc.,

 Familiarity with general discipline, classroom, behavior and instructional management and curriculum,  History of consistent follow-through with tasks,  Experiences with individuals or groups from diverse backgrounds (e.g. parents, students, agency representatives, community members, educators),  Facilitated team meetings, and  Rudimentary computer hardware and software skills.

Training Expectations: To demonstrate acquisition and fluency with PBIS practices and systems, coaches will be expected to engage in the following training activities:  Attend and participate in training activities,  Establish and monitor the PBIS approach in at least one school,  Maintain a record of the school’s efforts to implement PBIS (e.g. discipline data, action plan, products),  Develop and send progress reports on the first of each month (see Coach’s Implementation Checklist),  Report on PBIS progress at training follow-up activities, and  Prepare and conduct at least one presentation on a PBIS related topic.