Читать книгу An Educator's Guide to Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Inteventions and Supports - Jason E. Harlacher - Страница 8

1

Overview of Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

A school is primed for academic success if its students regularly engage in appropriate behaviors and require minimal discipline time. As we like to say about students and behavior, “If they’re not listening to directions, they’re not listening to instruction.” This is the aim of using Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) in schools: to create a safe, orderly environment with a positive school climate that enables students to achieve social and academic success. Within this chapter, we explore SWPBIS’s research base and theoretical background, after which we discuss the four key elements and the Problem-Solving Model.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is about building effective environments and using evidence-based practices that teach and encourage appropriate behaviors to replace undesired behavior (Carr et al., 2002). Accordingly, PBIS applied to the entire school is schoolwide PBIS. This creates a framework for all students that uses a broad range of strategies for teaching positive behaviors while also preventing and reducing undesired behavior, thus creating a system of supports within the school (Sailor et al., 2009). This system of supports is often referred to in the broader sense as Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which incorporates social behavior systems (for example, SWPBIS) as well as academic systems (for example, response to intervention; Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2009; Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden, 2007). We refer to SWPBIS as a framework that can be applied as a stand-alone framework or as the behavior support side of MTSS (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). We also use the terms model and framework interchangeably, as both refer to the broad, tiered structure of SWPBIS.

SWPBIS provides all students with universal instruction, called Tier One, using instructional and behavioral principles to teach a handful of schoolwide behavioral expectations (for example, be safe, be respectful, be responsible). This foundational level serves a preventative function to mitigate problematic behavior, and at least 80 percent of the students’ needs are met with universal instruction alone (George, Kincaid, & Pollard-Sage, 2009; Horner, Sugai, et al., 2005). A range of increasingly intensive and evidence-based supports are available for students who need more direct support for behavioral concerns, which allows school teams to match each student’s needs with a corresponding level of support and intervention. An additional 10 to 15 percent of students require supplemental, targeted support called Tier Two (also referred to as targeted support), and 3 to 5 percent require intensive, individualized support called Tier Three (also referred to as indicated support; Sugai & Horner, 2009). As illustrated in figure 1.1, SWPBIS creates a healthy, functioning school in which all students’ needs are met. It is important to understand that figure 1.1 represents a healthy system and is the ideal outcome of implementing SWPBIS. Some schools may serve populations in which most students may initially appear to need Tier Two or Tier Three supports; however, once the foundational systems and supports are in place, such schools can achieve outcomes that represent a healthy system (that is, at least 80 percent of students’ needs are met with Tier One alone, no more than 10 to 15 percent require Tier Two, and no more than 5 percent require Tier Three; Bohanon et al., 2006; Netzel & Eber, 2003). Whereas some schools may find that that 40 percent of their students are at risk for academic or behavioral failure, over time, SWPBIS will likely decrease the number of students who are at risk (Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008). See table 1.1 for a summary of SWPBIS.

Source: Harlacher, Sakelaris, & Kattelman, 2014.

Figure 1.1: SWPBIS framework.

SWPBIS is a responsive, efficient system of supports in which the intensity of support and services increases as students receive supports that are higher up in the triangle. To ensure their needs are met, teachers screen all students at least two to three times per year to identify those who may be at risk for behavioral difficulties (students already identified at risk are monitored with similar tools). Teachers provide students with support, and their progress is regularly monitored to ensure that support is effective (Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005; Sailor et al., 2009). Every teacher proactively assesses students’ needs, provides instruction, and then monitors its impact on every student; the entire school uses this approach. Such processes create a fluid system that emphasizes evidence-based practices and data for decision making (Horner, Sugai, et al., 2005; Sailor et al., 2009). Consequently, SWPBIS is a continuous-improvement system. It requires school teams to regularly examine both the impact and the implementation of individual interventions and the system itself (Newton, Horner, Algozzine, Todd, & Algozzine, 2009).

Table 1.1: SWPBIS Summary

Instruction	Group Size	Frequency and Duration
Tier One
Three to five positively stated expectations; teaching and reinforcement of those expectations; consistent procedures for responding to misbehavior	Whole school, taught in various formats (for example, at an assembly, in classroom, and so on)	Initial teaching; reteaching and recognition provided throughout school year; instructional boosters provided as needed, based on data
Tier Two
Targeted group, interventions to supplement Tier One with goal of displaying schoolwide expectations with increased instruction in explicit skills, increased oppor tunities to practice and receive feedback	Small group or 1:1 Designed to reach groups of students but not always delivered in a group setting	Occurs daily or weekly, depending on intervention Duration determined by student’s progress, but typically no longer than twenty weeks
Tier Three
Intensive instruction that includes small-group, 1:1, and wraparound services Individually designed	1:1 or small group, depending on intervention	Varies by student, but usually daily occurrence Longer duration relative to Tier Two

Source: Adapted from Harlacher et al., 2014.

However, SWPBIS is about more than just teaching behavioral expectations to students; SWPBIS focuses on creating supportive environments (Sugai & Horner, 2009). The most obvious way school teams do this is through its facilitation of social competence by directly teaching behavioral expectations and prosocial skills (Sugai & Horner, 2009). For example, school teams teach students the schoolwide expectations (such as be respectful and be safe), and they may also receive instruction on related prosocial skills (such as having empathy and working cooperatively). Additionally, the school team sets up an environment where students are more likely to succeed and to engage in prosocial behaviors (and learning) rather than problematic behaviors. The language adults use is geared toward the expectations (for example, “When we listen to others, that’s a way of being respectful”), structures can change in the environment (such as adjusted schedules or a modified layout of a common area), and the ratio of feedback for appropriate behavior to redirects for misbehavior increases as students are acknowledged often for displaying prosocial behavior. This differs starkly from approaches that focus on within-child problems, where the focus is only on students and adjusting their behaviors. Because of its focus on prosocial skills and the setting in which those skills occur, SWPBIS impacts the school’s overall climate, culture, and safety. In turn, students experience more positive social outcomes, develop lifelong skills, and face improved academic learning opportunities (McKevitt & Braaksma, 2008; Sugai & Horner, 2009).

“PBIS is the foundation for our school community; not only does it bring students and staff together; but it also incorporates families. Using PBIS helps us to consistently see students actively engaged in all aspects of their school day. When students are aware of the expectations set for them, they consistently rise to meet them. This system helped us create an uplifting environment in school where students and teachers alike feel successful.”

—Nikki Matthews, fourth-grade education teacher, Walterville Elementary School, Springfield, Oregon

(personal communication, May 13, 2016)

Next, we will delve into the research base for SWPBIS, its theoretical background, its four key elements, and the Problem-Solving Model.

Research Base for SWPBIS

To date, over twenty-one thousand schools in the United States use SWPBIS (National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports [NTACP-BIS], n.d.). Behind SWPBIS is a long history of effective results. In fact, Robert Horner, George Sugai, and Timothy Lewis (2015) provided a list of over one hundred references that have explored the effects of SWPBIS, including evaluation studies and randomized controlled studies. We summarize some of the results here.

The implementation of SWPBIS is associated with decreases in office discipline referrals and instances of problem behavior (Algozzine et al., 2008; Algozzine, Wang, et al., 2012; Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Curtis, Van Horne, Robertson, & Karvonen, 2010; Horner et al., 2009; Muscott, Mann, & LeBrun, 2008), decreases in both in-school and out-of-school suspensions (Bradshaw et al., 2010; Curtis et al., 2010; Muscott et al., 2008; Netzel & Eber, 2003; Scott, 2001; Simonsen et al., 2012), and increases in feelings of school safety from both students (Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, & Sprague, 2001) and staff (Horner et al., 2009). One study found that students in schools using SWPBIS had better emotion regulation, fewer concentration problems, and more prosocial behaviors than in schools that did not (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2012). Teachers also reported feeling more confident in handling discipline and feeling less burnout from the school day (Ross, Romer, & Horner, 2012), and the model was associated with improvements in the organizational health of the school (Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans, Ialongo, & Leaf, 2008; Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009).

Studies have found associations between the use of SWPBIS and increases in academic achievement, albeit modest (Bradshaw et al., 2010; Horner et al., 2009; Muscott et al., 2008). The association between SWPBIS and achievement is logical, as schools have reported gaining back hours and days of instructional time because of decreases in absences, tardies, and suspensions (Caldarella, Shatzer, Gray, Young, & Young, 2011; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997). One middle school reported gaining back over 222 hours from reductions in office referrals and over 640 days due to decreased absences (Caldarella et al., 2011).

Perhaps most appealing is that the work to implement the model is an efficient process, as schools with positive results have received two to three days of initial training and a few follow-up trainings prior to implementing the model (Bradshaw et al., 2012; Mass-Galloway, Panyan, Smith, & Wessendorf, 2008). The actual process of teaching the school-wide behavioral expectations to students is also very efficient. Susan Taylor-Greene and colleagues (1997) reported spending a half day at the beginning of the year and a few booster sessions during the year for their model, which resulted in nearly a 50 percent reduction in referrals. Paul Caldarella and colleagues (2011) reported using monthly twenty-minute lessons throughout the school year to teach students the expectations and certain social skills, which resulted in large reductions in referrals and absences.

The benefits of SWPBIS are not exclusive to one setting or type of school, as beneficial results occur in early education settings (Fox & Hemmeter, 2009; Frey, Boyce, & Tarullo, 2009; Muscott et al., 2008), elementary schools (Bradshaw et al., 2010; Bradshaw et al., 2012; Horner et al., 2009), middle schools (Metzler et al., 2001; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997), and high schools (Mass-Galloway et al., 2008; Muscott et al., 2008; Simonsen et al., 2012). The findings also include rural settings (Curtis et al., 2010) and urban settings (Bohanon et al., 2006; Netzel & Eber, 2003). Given these findings, it is evident that SWPBIS is a well-researched and evidence-based practice that benefits a variety of students and settings (Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010).

Theoretical Background

Six principles serve as the theoretical and conceptual background of SWPBIS (Sugai & Horner, 2009).

▴ Principle 1. Use of behavioral principles

▴ Principle 2. Use of a proactive and preventative approach to discipline

▴ Principle 3. Focus on instruction and matching support to student need

▴ Principle 4. Use of evidence-based practices

▴ Principle 5. Use of data-based decision making

▴ Principle 6. Focus on a schoolwide perspective

The following sections address each in order.

Principle 1: Use of Behavioral Principles

SWPBIS’s historical roots are grounded in behaviorism and applied behavior analysis (Sugai & Horner, 2009). Behavioral principles are used because of their effectiveness in achieving valued outcomes and facilitating healthy development in students (Sugai & Horner, 2009; Shinn, Walker, & Stoner, 2002). Table 1.2 (page 10) provides a brief summary of key terms and concepts related to behaviorism. Students are taught prosocial skills and then acknowledged for using those skills with reinforcement methods, and various strategies are used to manage, prevent, and decrease unwanted behavior (Sugai & Horner, 2009; George, Kincaid, & Pollard-Sage, 2009).

Table 1.2: Key Terms and Concepts for Behaviorism

Term	Definition
Setting Events	People, events, or conditions that precede the behavior (but are temporally distant) and temporarily affect the value of a reinforcer
Antecedent	Event that occurs before a behavior; the trigger to the behavior
Behavior	The observable and measurable act
Consequence	Event or result that occurs after a behavior, influencing the likelihood of the behavior occurring again in the future
Reinforcement	A consequence event that increases the likelihood of a behavior occurring again; it strengthens the behavior
Punishment	A consequence event that decreases the likelihood of a behavior occurring again; it weakens the behavior

Source: Alberto & Troutman, 2013; Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Skinner, 1953, 1976; Watson, 1913; Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988.

A behavior is an observable and measurable act, such as a student raising her hand. Behavior occurs within a context, so each behavior is preceded by antecedent that triggers the behavior. In this case, a teacher asking a question in class is the antecedent. Behavior is then followed by a consequence, which can either make the behavior more likely to happen in the future (which is called reinforcement) or make it less likely to happen in the future (which is referred to as punishment). For example, if a teacher calls on a student, that may serve as reinforcement. However, if the student is called upon, gives a wrong answer, and his or her classmates laugh, the student may not raise her hand in the future when the teacher asks a question, thus resulting in punishment for raising her hand. Setting events temporarily affect the value of a reinforcer, making them more or less desirable. In this case, a setting event may be that the student had a fight with a classmate and therefore the desire to be called upon is stronger now (the student really wants the teacher’s attention, in this case). Another example that perhaps we can all relate to is online shopping! When you receive an email coupon, that is an antecedent that triggers the behavior of online shopping. The consequence is reinforcement, as you are rewarded with new clothes at a discounted price (thanks to that coupon). A setting event could be that someone made fun of your clothes last week, making new clothes more desirable.

Additionally, educators and school teams that use SWPBIS consider the environment and contextual influences to identify antecedents and setting events for certain behaviors (Crone & Horner, 2003; Sugai & Horner, 2009). Rather than assuming problems are housed solely within an individual, the SWPBIS approach examines the school context to determine how the environment contributes to the problem (Carr et al., 2002; Crone & Horner, 2003). As such, school personnel will consider the setting and the conditions that are contributing to or causing the identified problem, be it with the systems in place, certain processes, the environment, the behavior of staff, another student, or a group of students (Crone & Horner, 2003; George et al., 2009; Sailor et al., 2009). Such an approach places the ability to change behavior in the hands of the educators, as they can identify alterable variables related to behavior that can be adjusted accordingly.

“When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don’t blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun.”

—Thich Nhat Hanh, Buddhist monk, author, and peace activist

Principle 2: Use of a Proactive and Preventative Approach to Discipline

The use of SWPBIS focuses on a proactive and preventative approach to discipline and behavior management. Instead of assuming that students know the prosocial behaviors needed to succeed in school, school teams and staff using SWPBIS create core behavioral expectations that are applicable across the entire school and proactively teach the expected behaviors rather than waiting until misbehavior occurs. Instead of other service delivery models that provide support after an incident (Carr et al., 2002; Netzel & Eber, 2003), students are taught a reasonable number of expectations at the beginning of the school year to get all of them on the same page regarding how to be successful across school settings.

The use of SWPBIS focuses on provisions of support early on to prevent problems from becoming more severe. In practice, school teams using SWPBIS will screen students throughout the year to identify those in need of support before their misbehavior becomes a chronic issue. School teams also analyze school-level data on a regular basis to identify problem areas and make environmental changes before they become larger problems. The overall approach is to provide support quickly and early, and to identify areas of concern in the school environment and adjust them immediately (George et al., 2009).

Principle 3: Focus on Instruction and Matching Support to Student Need

This principle behind SWPBIS is elegant: teach behavior in the same manner as academics (Darch & Kame’enui, 2004; Horner, Sugai, et al., 2005). Just as students learning academic skills need practice and opportunities to demonstrate those skills, so do they with behavioral skills (Darch & Kame’enui, 2004; Horner, Sugai, et al., 2005). To teach students expectations, school teams that use SWPBIS adopt an instructional approach that involves modeling, practice, and feedback. Accordingly, the staff make a conscious choice to shift from a reactive, punitive approach for discipline to a proactive, reinforcement-based approach (Carr et al., 2002; Netzel & Eber, 2003; Horner, Sugai, et al., 2005). The staff view misbehavior as an opportunity to reteach, not as a chance just to punish the student. Instead of using only punishment strategies to manage misbehavior, SWPBIS focuses on teaching and reinforcing behavioral expectations first. Punishment strategies (such as timeout or loss of privileges) are used second, and only when other options are exhausted and when data support their use. Misbehavior is an opportunity to reteach.

Along with an instructional approach to social behavior, school teams that use SWPBIS focus on creating a match between a student’s current skills and corresponding level of support. A range of strategies to teach and encourage appropriate behavior is used to both mitigate the impact of misbehavior and avoid it altogether. The entire school is organized to create universal supports for all students (that is, Tier One), and increasingly intensive layers of instruction are used for students who require more support (that is, Tiers Two and Three). The range of supports ensures that each student’s needs are matched with an appropriate level of support, and data are used to monitor if each student’s support is effective. Bear in mind that students who need additional support receive Tier Two or Three in addition to Tier One and do not receive Tier Two or Tier Three instead of Tier One. The tiers are layers of support that are added on top of each other. The provision of Tier Two or Three does not supplant a lower tier; instead, it supplements it.

Principle 4: Use of Evidence-Based Practices

SWPBIS places a premium on strategies and approaches that have evidence supporting their effectiveness. It does this to ensure that students have the best chance at making progress and reaching identified goals. Practices that have documented evidence of their impact are used, and practices that do not have evidence or are shown to be ineffective are discarded. However, even though there is evidence to support the use of certain practices, educators do not assume they will be effective for every student and situation. Instead, implementation of SWPBIS involves regularly gathering and analyzing data to ensure that the practices are implemented as intended and that they are in fact having an impact in any given school context (George et al., 2009).

Principle 5: Use of Data-Based Decision Making

Too often educators make decisions with limited data, don’t have the necessary data needed, or ignore the data available (Mandinach, 2012; Merrell et al., 2012; Reschly, 2008). To avoid these situations, SWPBIS involves regularly collecting and analyzing data for decisions. The focus on data creates a continuous-improvement cycle in which practices are implemented, information is gathered, and formative and summative decisions are made to ensure the practices are achieving the desired results (Newton, Horner, et al., 2009; Shinn, 2008a). This creates an iterative process within SWPBIS in which school teams monitor both the implementation and its impact.

“It’s amazing to watch schools and districts learn to use their data and apply evidence-based practices with high fidelity. Nevada schools went from a designated week of respect to a year of respect!”

—Ashley Greenwald, director of Nevada PBIS, research assistant professor, University of Nevada,

Reno, Nevada (personal communication, January 9, 2017)

Principle 6: Focus on a Schoolwide Perspective

A schoolwide perspective means that SWPBIS is used throughout the entire school and that the whole staff work collaboratively to support it. Instead of each teacher managing behavior or issues by him- or herself, the faculty takes a team-based approach. The practices and systems associated with SWPBIS are used in every setting and classroom, and the staff work akin to a pit crew coordinating services to achieve a goal (George, 2009).

A schoolwide perspective also means that issues are considered from a systemic perspective. Whereas school teams will monitor implementation and the impact of supports for individual students, they will also monitor implementation and impact of the entire model, including the collective needs of groups of students (Newton, Horner, et al., 2009). When issues arise or when a student needs support, school teams consider whether the identified problem is indicative of a larger, systemic issue or if it’s an isolated problem. Additionally, the school teams create systems that provide efficiency, coherency, and consistency with student discipline. This means that the totality of factors and structures within a school, such as resource allocation, leadership, and processes for accessing support, are aligned to support SWPBIS.

As an example, one team at an elementary school we worked with reviewed its office discipline referral data and identified a large increase in referrals from a handful of students in the afternoon (Harlacher, 2011). Before deciding upon a solution, the team examined additional data and discovered that a lot of sixth-grade students were receiving referrals for behavior during specials time (for example, music). Instead of singling out certain students and developing behavior plans, the sixth-grade staff simply retaught the schoolwide expectations to all sixth-grade students for behavior during music and increased reinforcement during that time. As a result, the number of referrals decreased as the expected behavior during music improved. This team-based approach illustrates the systemic perspective that school teams use with SWPBIS (Sugai & Horner, 2006). Had the team implemented individual plans without considering the system or context, it would not have efficiently or effectively addressed the issue.

The six aforementioned principles comprise the conceptual background of SWPBIS in which the overall goal is to achieve sustainability (McIntosh, Filter, Bennett, Ryan, & Sugai, 2010) and improve the social and academic functioning of all students and the overall climate of the school. These principles highlight the difference between SWPBIS and other behavioral initiatives in schools. SWPBIS is a school reform framework that emphasizes evidence-based practices and uses data to help staff make decisions that will prepare students to be productive members of society (George et al., 2009; Horner, Sugai, et al., 2005). See table 1.3 for a list of what SWPBIS is and is not.

Table 1.3: What SWPBIS Is and Is Not

SWPBIS Is …	SWPBIS Is Not …
A framework for decision making	A packaged program
A systemic and cultural change that is embedded throughout the school and culture	A scripted intervention or something that is added onto existing structures
Data driven	A rigid manual to follow
Preventative and responsive	A temporary solution
Inclusive of all students	Only about extrinsic rewards
A continuum of support using universal and targeted evidence-based practices	Just for students with chronic behavior issues

Source: NTACPBIS, 2010.

Four Key Elements

The principles behind SWPBIS may appear complex, but in practice, SWPBIS consists of four key elements: (1) outcomes, (2) practices, (3) systems, and (4) data (see figure 1.2; Sugai & Horner, 2006). These four elements provide a framework for organizing all of the pieces of SWPBIS and allow teams to think through the components they need to have a sustainable SWPBIS model. Outcomes are defined as the social, behavioral, and academic outcomes that school teams wish to achieve through the implementation of SWPBIS. Practices are the strategies and methods used to support students in displaying prosocial behavior, and the systems are processes and procedures put into place to support the staff in implementing those practices and gathering the necessary data (Sugai & Horner, 2006). Data are the clear pieces of information used to monitor implementation of the system, monitor its impact, and determine if the identified outcomes are achieved. As seen in figure 1.2, the outcomes should promote social competence and academic achievement. Staff then gather data to support decision making to determine the extent to which the students are reaching outcomes are effective, that the practices teachers implement to support students’ behavior in achieving the outcomes, and that the systems are in place to support staff with implementing the designated practices and gathering the necessary data to make decisions.

Source: PBIS Center, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education, 2017.

Figure 1.2: Four key elements of SWPBIS.

George Sugai, a professor at the University of Connecticut and leading researcher in SWPBIS, is credited with an analogy to help think about these elements. If you consider going on a vacation, the outcome is the destination. Sometimes we take trips to a faraway or new destination, and other times we take trips that are closer and more familiar. Practices can be related to the way we drive. Some of us are “Sunday” drivers who like to take our time along the way, making lots of stops and taking in all the scenery. Others are like delivery truck drivers who only stop when the service station is on the right side of the road because it is more efficient than crossing traffic to stop for services on the left side of the road. In our vacation analogy, systems can be thought of as the car we drive to our destination. A reliable mode of transportation versus a car that continually breaks down and needs service makes a huge difference in whether we are likely to arrive at the destination. The data make up the map or GPS information we use to get to the destination. It is important that the information we use to determine how to arrive at our vacation destination is accurate (updated with detours and construction information) to increase the precision of our decision making about which routes to take. Similarly, the more complex the route to the destination, the more data we are likely to need. These four key elements interact with each other and are the salient features that comprise the SWPBIS framework. When all four elements are in place within a school, teams can develop a sustainable SWPBIS framework (McIntosh, Horner, & Sugai, 2009; Sugai & Horner, 2006).

Outcomes: Promoting Social Competence and Academic Achievement

Prior to implementing SWPBIS, school teams will identify the specific and relevant outcomes that they want to achieve with implementation. Outcomes are the “academic and behavior targets that are endorsed and emphasized by students, families, and educators” (NTACPBIS, n.d.). As Robert Horner, George Sugai, Anne Todd, and Teri Lewis-Palmer (2005) described:

Schools are expected to be safe environments where students learn the academic and social skills needed for life in our society. The basic goals of any system of schoolwide [PBIS] must be to provide the behavioral assistance needed to achieve those [outcomes]. (p. 365)

To that end, school teams identify their desired outcomes and define those in measurable manners. All students, staff, and parents decide upon and value these outcomes (Sugai & Horner, 2006). One way to frame the outcomes is to consider them as goals of implementation; what do teams want SWPBIS to achieve?

Schools will identify long- and short-term outcomes of using SWPBIS. Long-term outcomes are overarching and global outcomes that are often distal; they take months or years to achieve, such as improved academic performance or increased safety within the school. Short-term outcomes are more immediate and pressing goals, and they are typically reached within a few weeks or within the semester or quarter. For example, schools may identify a short-term outcome of reducing referrals among sixth-grade students or increasing attendance of students during the second semester. The outcomes can also be organized across tiers. For example, a Tier One outcome is to ensure that at least 80 percent of students have zero to one office referrals or that all Tier Two interventions are provided with at least 90 percent fidelity.

As an example, a PBIS team at XYZ Elementary School implemented SWPBIS to improve the overall climate within its school and to decrease student problem behavior. During implementation, it identified a need to examine behavior during recess. The team wanted to decrease disrespectful behavior that occurred when students were lining up from recess to come inside. It set a goal to reduce office referrals by 50 percent over a two-month period. This reduction in office referrals was the outcome the team monitored to determine if they had been successful. The intervention involved special recess positive tickets that students got for lining up appropriately. Students took those tickets back to the classroom, and at the end of the week, the class with the most tickets for this behavior got an extra recess (and the teacher got an extra fifteen minutes to herself because extra recess was given during another recess period, so someone other than the classroom teacher was responsible for supervision). When the team reviewed the outcome of this intervention, it met the goal of reducing the office referrals by at least 50 percent. In addition, teachers and staff reported an increase in focused instruction and acknowledgment for lining up appropriately and respectfully transitioning in from recess. The classroom teachers also reported that the focus on appropriate behavior at recess reduced time spent responding to “tattling” and other inappropriate recess behaviors (students still being frustrated when they came into the classroom, and arguments extending into the classroom), resulting in shorter, more pleasant transitions and increased instructional time immediately following recess (Rodriguez, 2015).

Identifying the outcomes that school teams wish to achieve provides an organizing framework to make decisions about the data schools will gather, the practices they use, and the systems they need to put into place. For example, if a school team identifies increases in attendance as a valued outcome, one would expect that school to examine data on attendance rates throughout the school year. When faced with decisions about which professional development to conduct, this school team would select trainings related to attendance and truancy rather than trainings unrelated to attendance. Although decisions about professional development are often made because of mandates and priorities from district leadership, having clearly defined outcomes assists schools in determining which practices to adopt and which ones not to adopt. In short, any school that uses SWPBIS needs to define its purpose and outcomes for using the model.

Practices: Supporting Student Behavior

As school teams identify the outcomes they want to achieve and the data they need to gather, they also decide upon the practices needed to achieve those outcomes. The practices refer to the strategies and methods used to improve student behavior and prevent undesired behavior. This is the instructional piece of SWPBIS that is organized into tiers. Tier One is universal support provided to all students, and it’s designed to foster prosocial behavior and decrease occurrences of inappropriate behavior. In practice, it consists of identifying schoolwide expectations, teaching them to all students, and providing a high rate of reinforcement for meeting these expectations. It also includes establishing a continuum of procedures for managing undesired behavior.

At Tier Two, students continue to take part in the Tier One practices but are also provided more intensive support based on a common need through additional instruction and reinforcement of the schoolwide expectations (Hawken, Adolphson, MacLeod, & Schumann, 2009). Designed to be provided quickly and efficiently, Tier Two consists of a range of interventions that may include social skills instruction, frequent check-ins with school staff, or before- and after-school programs.

At Tier Three, teachers provide students with individualized and intensive instruction in addition to the prosocial climate and supports (Scott, Anderson, Mancil, & Alter, 2009). The interventions reduce the severity of problem behaviors and enhance prosocial behaviors, and they are multifaceted. The coordination and delivery of Tier Three often entails academic and behavioral supports and is function based (Crone & Horner, 2003). This can include school-based supports, school-home components, and community supports.

Systems: Supporting Staff Behavior

To ensure that practices are implemented well and that the staff can gather the necessary data to inform outcomes, school teams also consider the systems and procedures they need to adjust or put into place to support the staff.

Systems change is often one of the more complex aspects of the SWPBIS elements because it typically involves adjustments that are more difficult to see, and it requires administrative leadership and strong buy-in to change many moving parts that have become engrained habits within the school (Bohanon & Wu, 2014). For example, schools may need to adopt new processes and programs for office discipline referral data recording, entry, and management that allow staff to have meaningful information, which enables them to determine the effectiveness of a practice. Changing this one aspect of the SWPBIS system to better assess outcomes will require a thoughtful data-revision process. The team will:

▴ Reassess what data are collected for each office discipline referral form

▴ Design the form and consider how teachers can feasibly complete it (such as a half sheet that recess attendants can carry and has less information than a full sheet, or checkboxes rather than blanks to maximize efficiency)

▴ Determine which information other staff and parents receive, who communicates office referral to other staff and parents, and how the communication occurs

▴ Determine the program for data entry and management

▴ Decide logistics for who will input the data into the program and when the data will be entered

▴ Determine which team will review the data and how often

▴ Assess the impact of the changes and monitor whether the referral procedures are being followed accurately

There are numerous considerations for just one tiny aspect of SWPBIS. Another example could involve an administrator providing time in the master calendar for schoolwide teaching of expectations following a school break. This often involves adjusting multiple schedules as well as dealing with protecting instructional time for teachers to meet certain academic mandates. For the individual chapters on the tiers (chapters 2, 3, and 4), we discuss the specific systems that need to be in place. Here is a summary.

At Tier One, school teams put systems in place that include establishing a representative team to guide implementation, securing funding and resources, training and coaching staff to obtain and maintain their buy-in for SWPBIS and ensure that they understand Tier One, and having clear data procedures that include ongoing use of data to screen students and to monitor implementation. At Tier Two, similar systems include establishing personnel and a team to oversee Tier Two supports; dedicating roles for staff to support Tier Two; training and coaching; and communicating with students, families, and staff on those supports; as well as ongoing use of data to support decision making related to implementation and impact. At Tier Three, systems include a specialized behavior support team; access to behavioral expertise; procedures for identifying students who need additional support; and communicating with families, students, and staff; as well as ongoing use of data to support decision making related to the implementation and impact of Tier Three (Horner et al., 2010).

Data: Supporting Decision Making

Once school teams identify the outcomes that they want to achieve, they then identify the data needed to measure progress toward those outcomes. School teams will identify specific sources of data, which we discuss in subsequent chapters, but school teams use data to answer two questions for all aspects of SWPBIS: (1) Are practices implemented with fidelity and (2) What is the impact of those practices? Implementation is the act of applying a certain practice, whereas implementation fidelity is the extent to which a practice is implemented as intended (also referred to simply as fidelity; Hosp, 2008; Wolery, 2011). Impact (synonyms include outcome or effect) is the benefit of that practice. To have the necessary data to answer questions about implementation and impact, school teams gather four types of data—(1) fidelity, (2) screening, (3) diagnostic, and (4) progress monitoring.

Are Practices Implemented With Fidelity?

Fidelity data gauge the extent to which practices are being implemented as intended. There are a variety of methods for measuring fidelity, but often observations of the practices, questionnaires about the practices, or checklists of the components of a practice help to document and check fidelity (Kovaleski, Marco-Fies, & Boneshefski, n.d.; Newton, Horner, et al., 2009; Newton, Todd, et al., 2009). By measuring (and ensuring a high degree of) fidelity, educators can be confident that a lack of desired outcomes is the result of an ineffective practice (in other words, even though the practice was implemented accurately, it still didn’t reach the desired outcome). Accordingly, they can also be confident that when a desired outcome is reached, it is because educators implement the practice with fidelity. If educators do not measure fidelity, they are lacking information as to the extent to which educators were using the practice correctly and they may misattribute failure to reach the outcome to the practice itself when fidelity is actually the culprit (Harlacher et al., 2014). Additionally, sometimes low fidelity might tell a team that a practice is not a good fit for a particular context, and the team can discuss whether certain modifications to the practice (retraining, providing additional resources, and so on) will achieve desired outcomes or whether it should consider a new practice or intervention. Fidelity measures are used for each solution implemented and for each level of support (Tier One, Tier Two, Tier Three). Fidelity measures calculate the overall implementation of the tiers of SWPBIS and implementation of individual interventions.

To provide an analogy for the importance of measuring fidelity, consider a person who wants to lose weight. This person sets a goal to lose eight pounds in one month by attending yoga four times per week. After one month, this person has lost four pounds. Without knowing if the person followed the exercise plan, it’s difficult to determine which is at fault—the fidelity or the plan. If the person did yoga four times per week and still did not reach the goal, we can assume the plan was not effective. However, if the person only did yoga two times per week, then we can’t know if the exercise plan would have worked or not—it wasn’t followed. Conversely, if the person met the goal and did not measure fidelity, we can’t be sure what led to the weight loss. Was the person lucky, or did the plan actually work?

When fidelity isn’t met and the goal isn’t met, we must adjust fidelity and then try again. If fidelity is met, we can conclude the plan didn’t work. Figure 1.3 illustrates the logical conclusions when examining a goal and fidelity. By ensuring that practices are implemented with fidelity, decision makers can determine the extent to which practices are effective in achieving goals.

Figure 1.3: Logic of fidelity and decision making.

Screening data identify those students who are at risk (Hosp, 2008). Office discipline referrals (ODRs) are commonly used within SWPBIS (Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, & Vincent, 2004), but schools may also screen using social and behavioral assessments (Anderson & Borgmeier, 2010; Hawken, et al., 2009). School teams also use screening data to understand the extent to which the overall system is healthy—at least 80 percent of the student population is responding to Tier One universal supports and are low risk for chronic problem behaviors, 10 to 15 percent seem to have some risk and are responding to Tier Two interventions, and about 5 percent need additional individualized supports. If the SWPBIS system is not healthy, the screeners can help teams identify where to target additional Tier One supports for all students. If the system appears healthy, the screeners can help determine students who may need additional support (Hawken et al., 2009).

Once a team identifies a problem (for example, too many referrals on the playground) or when students are determined to need additional support, it uses diagnostic data to determine why the problem is occurring. Whereas screeners are brief measures of general outcomes, diagnostic tools take longer to administer; they dig into the context of the problem and provide extensive data on why the problem is occurring. For example, XYZ Elementary examined additional detailed office discipline referral data on specific behavior types, when the problems occurred, who got the referrals, and why there were numerous referrals occurring on the playground. From this additional information, the team could identify a reasonable solution. For individual students, teachers gather information on the purposes or functions of a behavior so the school staff can examine them to determine the reason behind the behavior. Schools commonly use ODRs to provide more detailed information on a student’s behavior, but the school staff may also use request-assistance forms or brief interviews with staff or students that will help identify the functions of behavior (Hawken et al., 2009). For some students, the staff may conduct a functional behavior assessment, an extensive assessment process designed to ascertain why a problem behavior is occurring and determine the environmental triggers and responses to that behavior (Crone & Horner, 2003).

What Is the Impact of These Practices?

Following the use of screening and diagnostic tools, teachers monitor the impact of solutions to the problem to ensure it is meeting the desired outcome. In progress monitoring, staff collects data to determine if support is effective while it is occurring to make formative decisions (Hosp, 2008). Schools use an array of methods and sources to monitor solutions, such as permanent products, daily behavior tracking cards, attendance, and ODRs (Rodriguez, Loman, & Borgmeier, 2016). The previous example (where XYZ set a goal to reduce playground lining-up referrals by 50 percent) demonstrates progress monitoring. The team set a goal to reach by two months, but it reviewed data every two weeks to determine the impact of their solution—providing tickets for lining up and free recess intervention—and to modify if needed. For progress monitoring the impact of supports for individual students, teachers can often use a screening tool as a progress-monitoring tool; for example, teachers use ODRs to screen students and to examine progress. However, there may be situations where the nature of the behavior will determine the exact method used for its monitoring. For example, a student with aggressive behavior may be monitored using methods that are more explicit and detailed than ODRs. Additionally, the intensity of monitoring changes for individual students depends on which level of support they are receiving. All students are essentially monitored using screening tools throughout the year, but students in Tiers Two and Three will have more intensive monitoring (Harlacher et al., 2014; Horner, Sugai, et al., 2005).

Table 1.4 summarizes how the four elements look at each tier.

Problem-Solving Model

One of the features of SWPBIS that separates it from other schoolwide models or other approaches to discipline is its reliance on data to make decisions (Horner, Sugai, et al., 2005; Sugai & Horner, 2006). To ensure that data are used accurately and efficiently, school teams use the Problem-Solving Model (PSM). The PSM is a four-step model used to define problems in clear and concise terms and then identify a targeted solution to solve that problem (Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, 2002; Reschly, 2008; Shinn, 2008a; Tilly, 2008). The four stages of the PSM are: (1) Problem Identification, (2) Problem Analysis, (3) Plan Identification and Implementation, and (4) Plan Evaluation (see figure 1.4, page 22). Whereas we can view the four key elements (outcomes, practices, systems, and data) as an organizing framework for schools to achieve sustainability and effectiveness with SWPBIS, we can view the PSM as the engine that drives the elements. As school teams use the PSM to identify and solve problems, they will consider each of the four key elements at various steps of the PSM.

Table 1.4: Key Elements of SWPBIS

*Teachers administer screening to all students but use the results to identify students who may need Tier Two or Tier Three support.

Figure 1.4: The Problem-Solving Model.

Problem Identification

The first step of the PSM is Problem Identification. During this step, educators answer the question, What is the problem? Educators define the problem in observable and measurable terms that indicate the gap between the observed results and the expected results. In doing so, the educators clarify the magnitude of the problem and then determine whether there actually is a problem. For example, a team may identify that only 65 percent of students are receiving zero to one office referrals when at least 80 percent of students should have zero to one referrals. In this situation, there is a problem; 10 percent is a large enough magnitude. Conversely, if 75 percent of students are receiving zero to one referrals, the school may decide that 5 percent is not a large enough gap to indicate a problem. Once educators identify an initial problem, they can proceed to step 2.

Problem Analysis

If a problem is deemed worth solving, then school teams spend time analyzing the problem and answer the question, Why is the problem occurring? Whereas step 1 points out that a problem exists, step 2 entails gathering more information on the context of the problem. During step 2, Problem Analysis, educators gather or examine any additional data needed to answer all five Ws and one H.

1. What is the problem?

2. When is it occurring?

3. Where is it occurring?

4. Who is engaged in the behavior?

5. Why is it occurring?

6. How often is the behavior occurring?

Note that why refers to the functions of behavior, such as getting or getting away from attention, tangible objects or events, or sensory issues. It is also helpful to answer the why question last because the context of a behavior influences the function of the behavior. All of the gathered information paints a detailed picture of the problem, which in turn allows educators to make a summary statement. A summary statement defines the problem and indicates what, where, who, when, why, and how often the behavior is occurring (O’Neill, Horner, Albin, Sprague, & Storey, 1997; University of Oregon, 2011). This information also further quantifies the problem and provides parameters for a goal.

Developing a summary statement for the behavior involves moving from a general problem statement to a precise problem statement (Newton, Horner, 2009; University of Oregon, 2011). Precise problem statements are critical because they allow teams to develop efficient and targeted solutions (University of Oregon, 2011). While a general problem statement alerts someone that there’s a problem, it is vague and nondescript. With a precise problem statement, detailed information about the problem is included. In essence, going from a general problem statement to a precise problem statement is going from step 1 to step 2 of the PSM (see table 1.5).

Table 1.5: General Versus Precise Problem Statements

General	Precise
Noise in the hallway	In the last month, there have been fifteen office referrals for inappropriate language or disrespect in the hallway. The problem typically occurs during the transitions to and from lunch, and the majority of referrals are fifth graders. The most common function of behavior is peer attention.
High rate of ODRs	We have had twice as many ODRs during the month of October as we had in the month of September. The majority of ODRs are happening in the classroom and on the playground across grade levels. Noncompliance is the most common problem behavior in the classroom and it typically results in work avoidance; physical aggression is the most common problem behavior on the playground and results in peer attention or obtaining items.
Student disruption very high	There have been twenty instances of minor disruption occurring during the last fifteen minutes of our classes across grade levels before lunchtime in the last four weeks. Peer attention maintains the disruption.
Kids so mean; tease and bully each other	Three students have received ten referrals this month for bullying others. They are sending mean text messages and spreading rumors about other students to get peer attention.
Twice as many referrals in January compared to December	The doubling in referrals from December to January has occurred in all grades for being late to class. The motivation is peer attention, as they talk to each other in between classes.

It’s important that educators ensure precise problem statements by confirming that they include information on the five Ws and one H. Missing any one of those pieces of information can result in a less than precise solution (University of Oregon, 2011). For example, if a general problem statement indicates noise in the hallway, a school team may enlist an intensive solution for the problem (for example, all educators reteach expectations to students). However, if the precise problem statement for noise in the hallway indicates that the issue occurs only after lunch and involves a handful of students, then the solution is more targeted and less intensive (educators only reteach expectations to a handful of students). Once educators develop a precise problem statement, they can proceed to the next step of the PSM to identify a solution.

Plan Identification and Implementation

Step 3 is Plan Identification and Implementation, during which educators answer the question, What can be done to solve the problem? This step includes identifying a goal and designing a plan (which can also be viewed as solution) to reach that goal.

The plan is designed to be comprehensive, is based on principles of behaviorism, and includes these six components.

1. Prevention: What changes to the context can educators make to avoid the problem?

2. Teaching: What replacement behaviors will educators teach?

3. Recognition or reinforcement: How can teachers provide rewards for the desired behavior?

4. Extinction: How can teachers prevent the undesired behavior from being rewarded?

5. Consequences: What are efficient punishment strategies for the undesired behavior (if data indicate the need for punishment strategies)?

6. Evaluation of implementation and impact: How will teachers measure fidelity and impact (Newton, Horner, et al., 2009)?

Creating a comprehensive solution ensures that there are strategies to prevent the behavior, strategies to teach new replacement behaviors, strategies to reinforce the new behavior and prevent the old behavior from occurring, and strategies to monitor the implementation (that is, fidelity) and impact of the solution. Once teachers develop and implement a solution or plan, the team actively monitors and evaluates the plan during the next step of the PSM.

Plan Evaluation

In step 4, Plan Evaluation, educators answer the question, Did it work? by monitoring the plan’s implementation and impact (Newton, Horner, 2009). During this stage, educators examine the data and make decisions regarding continued use of the plan. If fidelity of implementation is good, educators can then make decisions about continuing, fading out, intensifying, or altering the current plan. If the fidelity is not good, then educators can have discussions about how to improve fidelity, and they continue the plan before they make decisions about its impact.

The PSM provides an organizing framework for educators to identify and solve problems. The four steps allow school teams and individual educators to (1) initially identify a problem, (2) understand the context and reasons the problem is occurring, (3) develop a plan to solve the problem, and (4) monitor the impact and implementation of that plan for the problem (Newton, Horner, et al., 2009; Shinn, 2008a). Table 1.6 illustrates the steps of the PSM.

Table 1.6: PSM Steps

Step of the PSM	Example
1. Problem Identification	There have been fifteen office referrals (observed level) for inappropriate language or disrespect in the hallway in the last month, and there should be no more than two during that time (expected level).
2. Problem Analysis	A majority of fifth graders are being loud and saying inappropriate or disrespectful things to each other during the transitions to and from lunch each week in order to obtain peer attention.
3. Plan Identification and Implementation	The plan will include: (1) prevention of the problem behavior by reteaching “being respectful” and then asking teachers to stand in hallway and use active supervision to prompt students; (2) teaching the desired behavior by reteaching “being respectful” and teaching students to say hello to each by waving, giving a high five, or saying hello appropriately; (3) recognition or reinforcement of the desired behavior by providing students PBIS tickets for appropriate behavior and saying hello appropriately; (4) extinction of the problem behavior by prompting students to perform an appropriate way of saying hello to each other when loud or inappropriate; (5) using consequences by having students stop and wait until hallways are clear before they can proceed if they display the problem behavior; and (6) evaluation of implementation and impact by tracking impact by examining referrals and tracking implementation by counting the number of teachers who use active supervision during transition times.
4. Plan Evaluation	Meet in one week to examine data on implementation (for example, rating of adherence to the plan on a scale of 1–3) and impact (such as office referrals).

Problem Solving for Systems Versus Students

Within the context of the PSM, SWPBIS teams can examine problems on a systems level as well as problems on a student level. Systems-level problem solving examines the system as a whole, whereas student-level problem solving focuses on groups of students or individual students. A matrix illustrates how school teams can consider implementation and impact data on both of those levels (see table 1.7). We discuss specific questions and answers for each tier in their respective chapters.

Table 1.7: Problem-Solving Questions Between the Tiers

Summary

SWPBIS is a schoolwide framework designed to improve school climate and discipline while also setting the foundation for academic and social-emotional outcomes (Sailor et al., 2009). The model is based on proactively teaching students schoolwide expectations and is housed in behavioral and instructional principles. The model enlists four key elements to ensure its effectiveness and sustainability—(1) outcomes, (2) practices, (3) systems, and (4) data—and educators use the PSM to solve problems and drive the connection among the key elements. We explore the details of each tier separately within the next several chapters and provide examples of SWPBIS for each of the elements.