District presents PBIS "data to action" review; teams set targets after mixed results

Sept. 9, 2025 — The district's director of student services and the supervisor of counseling and wellness presented a second-year review of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), describing multiple data sources the district uses to move "data to action" and set annual goals for each school. Why it matters: PBIS is the framework the district uses to organize universal and targeted behavioral supports. District leaders said PBIS is intended to be proactive and to provide a continuum of behavioral health services; the data the teams collect guide interventions, goal setting and resource allocation. Dr. McCullough, the director of student services, said, "PBIS is the whole framework, and that's how we deliver a comprehensive continuum of behavioral health services in our schools," and described the tiered structure (tier 1, tier 2 and, at most schools, tier 3) used to match supports to student needs. Presenters reviewed multiple data sources used at different levels: - Satellite-level reports that provide districtwide context, including the PAES student self-report survey on substance use and behavioral health and an annual behavioral health report summarizing tier-3 referrals, Safe2Say summaries, child-line reports and hospitalization data; presenters said those data include subgroup breakdowns. - Map-level tools used by building leaders, including the Tiered Fidelity Implementation instrument (TFI) and the Staff Self-Assessment Survey (SAS), which measure the degree to which PBIS features are implemented and staff perceptions of PBIS effectiveness. The TFI includes observations, interviews and document review by the district's PBIS coach; 70% is identified as the state proficiency threshold. - Street-level data such as ongoing behavioral referrals entered by staff that capture student demographics, location, behavior, perceived motivation and responses; teams use that data to identify patterns and intervene early. The district also uses SHAPE (School Health Assessment and Performance Evaluation) to assess school mental health systems and a trauma-responsiveness self-assessment; Panorama provides student self-report social-emotional check-ins for grades 3'12 (paper versions for K'2). Program-specific sources include an effective school solution report card for the high school emotional support program and reports from the district's student assistance program, delivered by an external behavioral-health partner. Presenters said highlights for the year included state-level recognition for tier 1 and tier 2 teams (all scored 80% or higher), improvement in several Panorama indicators (an increase in students reporting a sense of belonging at the secondary level) and a decrease in behavioral referrals for students with disabilities. Areas for growth included a persistent gap in behavioral referrals between white students and Black and Hispanic students and lower student emotional-regulation scores (national percentile roughly 40th'50th), which presenters said have remained a challenge since COVID. Presenters described supports to address concerns: PBIS coaching from the district's external coach (DCIU PBIS coach), culturally responsive and restorative modules under the district's cultural-proficiency work (described as "educate and heal" lessons), affinity groups for students (male and female affinity groups were described by presenters), and targeted interventions identified through school-level data reviews. Presenters said affinity groups give students a safe space to share concerns; district leaders also said they leverage staff identified by students as trusted adults to provide additional supports. Committee members asked how the district addresses incidents such as verbal slurs and what concrete steps are taken beyond documentation. Presenters said the district uses restorative educational modules and PBIS prevention curricula to educate students and coaches teachers on in-the-moment responses; they also pointed to affinity groups and trusted-staff supports as mechanisms for follow-up. Presenters cautioned there is no single quick fix but said the district is using multiple interventions to reduce incidents over time. Presenters said the annual data review process culminates in each school's PBIS team setting goals for the coming year; teams review prior targets, current data and recommendations from central office, then finalize realistic, school-level focus areas. No formal action or vote was taken during the presentation. The committee followed the presentation with questions from members and public discussion of next steps, including requests for clearer action plans tied to identified areas of growth.