RoutledgeHandbooks 9780203074114 Chapter3

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.
80
On: 12 Jan 2023
Access details: subscription number
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK
Handbook of Classroom Management
Edmund T. Emmer, Edward J. Sabornie
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
Publication details
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203074114.ch3
Timothy J. Lewis, Barbara S. Mitchell, Robert Trussell, Lori Newcomer
Published online on: 18 Sep 2014
How to cite :- Timothy J. Lewis, Barbara S. Mitchell, Robert Trussell, Lori Newcomer. 18 Sep
2014, School-Wide Positive Behavior Support from: Handbook of Classroom Management Routledge
Accessed on: 12 Jan 2023
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203074114.ch3
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT
Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms
This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or
accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.80 At: 04:48 12 Jan 2023; For: 9780203074114, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203074114.ch3
3
SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT
Building Systems to Prevent Problem Behavior and Develop and
Maintain Appropriate Social Behavior
TIMOTHY J. LEWIS1 AND BARBARA S. MITCHELL
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
ROBERT TRUSSELL
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS–EL PASO
LORI NEWCOMER
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
INTRODUCTION
School discipline continues to be reported as one of the top concerns of educators
and the American public (Elam, Rose, & Gallup, 1996; Rose & Gallup, 2006; U.S.
Department of Education, 1998). For example, Myers and Holland (2000) indicated
that general education teachers reported on average that one in five of their students
exhibited disruptive/off-task behavior and one in 20 exhibited aggressive behaviors
to the point that intervention was necessary. Data suggest that students in middle
and high schools are even more at risk for encountering serious violence (Heavi-
side, Rowand, Williams, & Farris, 1998), with an estimated 16% of all high school
students in this country involved in one or more physical fights on school property
in the course of a year (Lockwood, 1997). Although the majority of students will not
experience exceedingly violent or aggressive behavior, the frequency and intensity
of these behaviors still disrupt and can overwhelm the process of schooling for all
students (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). Teachers and administrators indicate
that addressing school discipline issues is one of the single greatest demands on their
time, citing that problem behaviors interfere with the their ability to educate and are
40
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support • 41
the most common reason for the removal of students from classroom and school
settings (Miller-Richter, Lewis, & Hagar, 2012).

Further compounding the challenge that schools face is the relationship between
low-level nonviolent behavioral offenses (noncompliance, disrespect, insubordina-
tion) and later emergence of more serious or violent offenses (Heaviside, Rowand,
Williams, & Farris, 1998; Powell, Fixsen, Dunlap, Smith, & Fox, 2007). In one study,
52% of the teachers and administrators who were surveyed reported an increase in
violence at the middle and high school levels; however, they perceived that minor
offenses such as verbal intimidation, threats, shoving, and harassment were escalat-
ing at a far greater rate than more serious violations (Peterson, Beekley, Speaker,
& Pietrzak, 1996). Suspensions and expulsions have increased due in large part to
such minor infractions as noncompliance, tardiness, and truancy (Brooks, Schiraldi,
& Ziedenberg, 1999; Ingersoll, & LeBoeuf, 1997; Skiba, Peterson & Williams, 1997).
Mayer and Leone (1999) point out that school personnel spend more time and
resources on punitive and reactive measures (e.g., security guards, metal detec-
tors, video surveillance systems) aimed at inhibiting aggression and violence than
on positive, preventive measures. These findings are significant in that they suggest
that schools should spend equal energy on addressing the overall school climate and
focusing efforts to reduce minor disruptions. The magnitude of concern regarding
the discipline and the mental health needs of children and youth prompted the Sur-
geon General more than a decade ago to call for a national agenda that fosters social
and emotional health in children as a national priority (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2000). To more fully respond to the issue of creating improved
school environments to curb disruptive, aggressive, and violent behavior in schools,
informed policy and interventions are urgently needed.
Factors That Contribute to the Problem

The Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior has identified several risk factors
that lead to the development of problem behavior patterns among children (Walker,
Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). The list includes (1) poverty, neglect, and abuse, (2) harsh
and inconsistent parenting, (3) drug and alcohol use by the caregiver, (4) modeling
of aggressive behavior, (5) media violence, (6) a negative attitude in the home toward
schooling, (7) family transitions such as death or divorce, and (8) parent criminality.
Sadly, contextual factors found in schools also contribute to the development and occur-
rence of persistent problem behaviors. Mayer (1995, 2001) identified within-school
factors that exacerbate antisocial behavior, including: (1) an overreliance on punitive
methods of control, (2) unclear rules for student behavior, (3) lack of administrative
support for staff and lack of staff agreement with policies, (4) misuse of behavior man-
agement procedures, (5) failure to respond to individual student differences, and (6)
academic failure. The significance of school-related contextual factors is emphasized in
a U.S Department of Education publication (2000a, p. 10) that states: “Studies indicate
that approximately four of every five disruptive students can be traced to some dysfunc-
tion in the way schools are organized, staff members are trained, or schools are run.”
42 • Lewis, Mitchell, Trussell, Newcomer
At the school and district level, discipline codes and policies are likely to include
“get tough” responses (e.g., containment, punishment, suspension, or zero tolerance)

designed to send a strong message that certain types of problem behaviors are unac-
ceptable and will result in stringent consequences. Although these responses may
lead to temporary reductions in problem behavior, they have little effect on increas-
ing school safety or on the long-term reduction of problem behavior (DeVoe et al.,
2003; Skiba, 2002; Skiba, Reynolds, Graham, Sheras, Conoley, & Garcia-Vazquez,
2006). Exclusionary responses increase the probability of future grade retention,
subsequent suspensions, expulsion, and dropping out, factors associated with
increased academic risk and juvenile crime (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1994). Nor do
such policies meet the challenge of creating a positive school climate or prevent the
development and occurrence of problem behavior (Mayer, 1995; Patterson, Reid, &
Dishion, 1992).
A Promising Solution
Altering contextual factors (e.g., clear routines, high rates of positive vs. negative
feedback, clear adult presence) has also been associated with the creation of more
positive school environments that are conducive to learning and result in increases
in student time on task, teacher use of praise, and improved perceptions of school
safety (Mayer, Mitchell, Clementi, Clement-Robertson, Myatt, & Vullara,1993; Metzler,
Biglan, Rusby, & Sprague, 2001; Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). Consistent
with this body of research, the Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture (1997)
summarized findings indicating that a quality education may be the most important
protective factor available to counter the risk factors that lead to problem behavior.
To this end, there is a growing expectation that schools deliver effective and efficient
interventions to ensure safe, productive school environments where norm-violating
behavior is minimized and prosocial behavior is promoted (U.S. Department of
Education, 2000a). A promising solution is the use of proactive school-wide behav-
ior management strategies to address the contextual factors within schools that lead
to problem behavior (Horner & Sugai, 2005; Lewis, Jones, Horner, & Sugai, 2010;
Sugai et al., 2000). School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SW-PBS) is one way to
effectively (1) reduce chronic challenging behavior, (2) promote cultures of social
competence that foster prosocial behavior and academic achievement, and (3) meet
the needs of children with significant behavioral challenges (Lewis & Sugai, 1999;
Sugai et al., 2000).
What Is Positive Behavior Support?

“Positive behavior support” is a general term that refers to the culturally appropri-
ate application of positive behavioral interventions and systems to achieve socially
important behavior change (U.S. Department of Education, 2000b). School-wide
PBS focuses on three key elements: (1) adoption of evidence-based practices,
(2) data to identify current status and effectiveness of intervention, and (3) systems
that enable staff to implement and sustain practices with accuracy.
SW-PBS establishes behavioral expectations and supports for all staff and stu-
dents across multiple settings and applies a three-tiered approach to prevention

(Horner & Sugai, 2005; Lewis, Jones, Horner, & Sugai, 2010; Lewis & Sugai, 1999;
Walker et al., 1996). Universal, or Tier I, supports focus on preventing the develop-
ment and occurrence of problem behaviors. Small group/targeted, or Tier II, focuses
on providing efficient and rapid response to reduce the number of existing cases.
Intensive/individualized, or Tier III, focuses on reducing the intensity and com-
plexity of existing cases that are not responsive to universal, or Tier II, supports.
A functional perspective in which factors that reinforce appropriate behaviors and
maintain problem behaviors (i.e., positive and negative reinforcement) guides the
development of effective, efficient, and relevant interventions and is applied across
the full continuum of supports. Finally, SW-PBS promotes an instructional emphasis
in which behavioral expectations are clearly defined and taught to all students. For
students who are at risk of social failure, social skills are taught in the same way as
academic skills, and behavioral deficits are addressed by teaching functional replace-
ment behaviors (Sugai et al., 2010). The remainder of this chapter provides an over-
view of the essential features of school-wide systems of PBS and is organized around
(1) the essential features of school-wide systems of PBS, (2) current research, and
(3) implications for research and practice.
SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT

Problem behavior occurs on a continuum from occasional mild misbehavior to
behavior that is severe, chronic, and disruptive to the learning environment. SW-PBS
emphasizes a continuum of support in which the intensity of intervention increases
to match the intensity and complexity of the presenting problem.
Universal Supports
Universal systems of support focus on prevention and the creation of a safe, predict-
able environment with a common set of expectations and consistent supports applied
across three interrelated systems: school-wide, nonclassroom, and classroom.
School-Wide Systems
A leadership team is established to guide all processes of SW-PBS. The team is com-
prised of a building administrator, classroom teachers, specialists, and support staff
representatives. The leadership team takes responsibility for assessment of current
discipline procedures and staff perceptions of what is in place, as well as what is work-
ing and not working. The information is used by the team to develop and implement
SW-PBS policy and procedures. Components of proactive systems of school-wide
PBS include (1) a statement of purpose, (2) a clear definition of expected behav-
iors, (3) procedures for teaching expected behaviors, (4) procedures for discourag-
ing problem behaviors, and (5) procedures for record keeping and decision making
(Sugai et al., 2010).
A statement of purpose is used to capture the proactive objectives of the disci-

pline plan. The statement reflects an approach that is agreed upon by the adminis-
tration and staff, focuses on all members of the school community and emphasizes
behavioral as well as instructional outcomes. A key component of SW-PBS is a
clear understanding of expected student behavior. To guide the identification of
universal expectations, the team focuses not on the problem behaviors but on
prosocial “replacement behaviors.” In other words, they emphasize the behaviors
that they would like children to demonstrate. The expectations, or school rules,
should be five or fewer and positively stated. For example, the staff at Elysium
Elementary School wanted their students to be “safe,” “respectful” “learners.” With
input from faculty and staff, the leadership team completed a matrix that opera-
tionally defined what each of those expectations would look like across all settings
in their school. The examples of appropriate behavior were then used as a founda-
tion for social skill instruction.
Behavior is a skill, just as reading and mathematical computations are skills. As
such, behavioral skills are taught paralleling the same process as academic instruc-
tion; educators introduce and teach a concept (e.g., quadratic equations in algebra),
provide practice opportunities (e.g., homework, in-class work), and give feedback
on performance (e.g., grades). Only after the student demonstrates mastery does the
instructor move on to new concepts. If a student does not master the skill, reteach-
ing, additional support, and practice are provided. Behavioral skills are taught and
learned in the same way.
The leadership team also develops procedures to acknowledge appropriate
behaviors on a regular basis. This serves three purposes. First, principles of rein-
forcement teach us that the provision of positive consequences following a desired
behavior results in an increase in the future probability of that behavior occurring.
Second, procedures to acknowledge appropriate behavior serve to increase the ratio
of positive interactions between teachers and students, creating a positive school
environment. Third, acknowledgment and reinforcement encourage students to self-
manage their own behavior. Schools use a range of reinforcement strategies, from
token systems to positive social acknowledgment. The form of the reinforcer is less
critical than the related frequency and consistency of acknowledgment of appropri-
ate behavior by teachers and staff.
Even with the school-wide positive procedures in place, there is still a need
to develop procedures to discourage problem behaviors. A continuum of conse-
quence responses should be available to respond to problem behavior. Consistency
can be increased by providing clear definitions of problem behaviors and by differ-
entiating between the behaviors that should be managed by teachers and supervi-
sory staff and the behaviors that warrant a referral for administrative involvement.
A full range of response procedures allows for more effective interventions across
the continuum of mild misbehavior to serious and chronic behavior challenges.
Students who repeatedly fail to meet behavioral expectations require a different
level of response than students who only occasionally misbehave. For these stu-
dents, systems that focus on teaching and supporting appropriate replacement
behaviors come into play.
The use of data to assess current conditions, to guide implementation, and to

evaluate the effectiveness of procedures is a critical feature of SW-PBS. An effi-

cient system of data collection and reporting is used to summarize data in a usable
format (e.g., graphs that allow visual analysis) for the purpose of evaluation and
informed decision making. The data should be flexible enough to provide a sum-
mary of key indicators of problem behavior such as (1) number of office referrals
per day for any given month, (2) number of office referrals per behavior (e.g., disre-
spect, fighting, inappropriate language), (3) number of office referrals per location
(e.g., cafeteria, classroom, playground), (4) number of office referrals by conse-
quences (e.g., detention, suspension) and (5) cumulative number of office referrals
per individual students. The leadership team analyzes the data regularly to discern
patterns of problem behavior and to guide the decision-making process. Data deci-
sion rules are also established to determine when individual students may need
more intensive supports.
Nonclassroom Systems
Nonclassroom settings include areas of the school that are characterized by large
numbers of students, strong social interaction among students, minimal adult super-
vision, and low structure (e.g., cafeteria, hallway transitions, bathrooms, assemblies)
and that present a different set of management challenges than the classroom does.
The school-wide expectations are extended to address specific behaviors unique to
these settings through direct instruction and opportunities to practice. In addition,
the physical characteristics and routines of these settings are assessed to determine
whether modifications are necessary to promote safety and effective supervision.
Modifications may include physical adjustments, such as removing unsafe objects,
eliminating objects or areas with obstructed views, altering traffic patterns or adjust-
ing schedules to reduce the number of students in a particular setting. Setting rou-
tines are designed to address both student and adult behavior in order to promote
efficiency in the execution of activities and to reduce the likelihood of problem behav-
iors occurring.
Two strategies, precorrection and active supervision, are important features of
nonclassroom setting supports. Precorrection procedures are used to make adjust-
ments before a student has a chance to behave inappropriately and are used when a
teacher anticipates the occurrence of problem behavior. For example, a teacher may
anticipate students having difficulty with an assignment. Based on the predictable
errors, she will preteach difficult vocabulary words before students are asked to read
a passage (Kame’enui & Simmons, 1990). The same strategy is applied to behavioral
errors. The teacher provides a precorrect, based on predictable problem behavior,
to remind students of the routines and expectations before they transition to a non-
classroom setting. Precorrects consist of identifying the context and the likely prob-
lem behavior, identifying the expected behavior, conducting behavioral rehearsals,
and providing reinforcement for expected behaviors. Effective use of precorrects can
prevent the need to respond reactively to inappropriate student behavior after the
fact (Colvin, Sugai, & Patching, 1993).
A second strategy for nonclassroom settings is active supervision. Elements of

active supervision include (1) movement around the setting in close proximity to
students, (2) visual scanning, and (3) high rates of interaction with students com-
prised of prompts, feedback, praise, correction, and encouragement (Newcomer,
Colvin, & Lewis, 2009). After students are instructed in the expectations, rules, and
routines, active supervision can promote generalized responding to other settings in
the school environment.
Classroom Systems
Paralleling universal school-wide systems, classroom systems also emphasize teach-
ing clearly defined behavioral expectations to prevent the occurrence of problem
behavior. Key components of universal classroom systems include (1) identification
and instruction in rules and routines, (2) effective instructional strategies, and (3) a
strong emphasis on positive teacher–student interactions.
Classroom rules and expectations should reflect the unique characteristics of an
individual classroom but link back to and reflect the greater school-wide expecta-
tions. Linking the rules to the school-wide expectations extends the language into
the classroom and supports the generalization of behavioral performance across set-
tings. For example, if the school-wide expectations are “Be Respectful, Be Respon-
sible, Be Cooperative,” each classroom teacher should align his or her classroom
rules with these three expectations. By linking back to the language of the school-
wide expectations, the students learn the specific behaviors that are important in
the classroom and become able to relate how those expectations fit into the school
context as a whole.
Because instruction that is too difficult or to easy creates conditions that fos-
ter problem behavior (Cooper et al., 1992), teaching and management strategies
that focus on instructional, curricular, and organizational adjustments are linked
to improved behavior (Conroy, Sutherland, Snyder, & Marsh, 2006; Simonson,
Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008; Simonson, Myers, & DeLuca, 2010). Stu-
dents learn best when there are frequent opportunities to respond to and actively
engage in the instruction and to be positively reinforced. Frequent opportunities to
respond and high rates of correct response are associated with increased on-task
behavior (Burns & Boice, 2009; Haydon et al., 2010) and a decrease in disruptive
behavior (Christle & Schuster, 2003; Gunter & Reed, 1997). High rates of student
response results in increased opportunity for a teacher to praise and correct student
responses and allows assessment of student understanding. Effective, well designed
instruction incorporates student supportive strategies to minimize errors, support
skill acquisition, and encourage active participation by creating opportunities for
successful learning.
The quality of teacher–student interactions is another component of SW-PBS in
classrooms. Research has demonstrated that in most classrooms, the rate of repri-
mands exceeds the rate of positive feedback and praise (Sutherland, Lewis-Palmer,
Stichter, & Morgan, 2008; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001; Sutherland, Wehby, & Cope-
land, 2000). Altering interaction patterns to increase teacher praise and positive
attention in the classroom can result in an increase in appropriate behaviors and a

decrease in disruptive behaviors. An effective classroom teacher strives for a ratio of

four positive praise statements to every reprimand or correction.
Tier II Supports
Approximately 10–15% of students will require support beyond the universal level
(Sugai et al., 2010). While these students exhibit problem behaviors at degrees and
frequencies that place them at risk for establishing chronic problem behavioral pat-
terns, developing individualized interventions is beyond the time and resources of
most schools. As part of the three-tiered approach to prevention outlined earlier in
this chapter, Tier II systems of prevention and intervention present an efficient and
effective intermediate level of intervention to target students who are clearly linked
to universal supports. Students who require this level of intervention typically have a
profile of ongoing, low-level problem behaviors (e.g., talking out, minor disruptions,
work completion), frequent (three to five) office referrals, and they exhibit problem
behavior across multiple settings within the school (Sugai et al., 2010).
Tier II supports focus on a range of intervention procedures and are developed and
driven by data indicators. Tier II interventions have included (1) self-management,
(2) social skill instruction, (3) informal, brief functional assessments and behavior
support plans, and (4) academic support (Mitchell, Stormont, & Gage, 2011). Key
features of Tier II supports include continuous availability, rapid access to the inter-
vention, and low effort by teachers for referral and implementation. In addition, they
are implemented by all staff across multiple settings and are continuously monitored
for effectiveness and decision making. Because Tier II strategies are implemented
within the universal school-wide system, they are designed to support the existing
classroom expectations and create a common focus and expected outcomes that are
consistent throughout the setting (Mitchell, Stormont, & Gage, 2011).
As with universal supports, data-based decision making guides the Tier II pro-
cess. Students are identified at the first signs of risk, based on data or teacher refer-
ral. A multiple gating approach efficiently identifies students who need additional
academic and social supports (Lane et al., 2012). First, teachers identify students
who may be at risk and make referrals based on their assessments. Second, review
of archival data such as attendance, academic performance, and office referrals are
used to identify patterns or problems that require support. Third, a team reviews the
information to determine which Tier II is appropriate for the student. Daily perfor-
mance data are used to monitor student progress.
Tier III Supports

With universal and Tier II systems firmly in place, schools should experience a decrease
in the number of students who need intensive individual supports (Lewis, Jones,
Horner, & Sugai, 2010). With the number of referrals for individual interventions
reduced, the system can respond more efficiently and effectively to those students who
do require a more intense level of support (Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009).
However, even with effective implementation of SW-PBS at the universal and Tier II
levels, approximately 5–10% of students in a school will require intense, individual-

ized interventions (Sugai et al., 2010). These students typically display serious, chronic
behavior patterns and higher rates of behavior infractions (e.g., six or more major
behavioral infractions or displaying high rates of risk) and require specially designed
individualized supports that are comprehensive, function based, and person centered.
Efficient and effective systems of individual support are based on technical competence
in functional behavioral assessment and intervention design from an applied behav-
ior analysis perspective. Within the three-tiered approach to SW-PBS, the Tier III level
provides systems to build the capacity for schools to understand and assess the function
of behavior and to design, implement, evaluate, and modify effective behavior support
plans for individuals with serious behavior problems.
A team-based approach is the foundation of a sustainable system of individual
behavior support (Benazzi, Horner, & Good, 2006). Team members should possess the
technical expertise to conduct functional behavioral assessments (FBA) and to design
behavior support plans that are based on assessment outcomes. At least one member
of the team should have expertise in applied behavior analysis, behavioral theory, FBA,
and intervention. Other logical team members would include school psychologists,
special and general educators, and a building administrator. The team must also have
predictable and efficient procedures to “(a) manage teacher requests for assistance,
(b) ensure that teachers and students receive support in a timely and meaningful
manner, (c) provide a general forum for discussions and possible solutions for indi-
vidual student behavioral concerns, and (d) organize a collaborative effort to support
the teacher” (Todd, Horner, Sugai, & Colvin, 1997, p. 74). The organizational features
of the team promote the efficient use of time, efficient documentation, a system of
accountability for task, and implementation responsibilities and clearly defined systems
for making data-based decisions (Benazzi, Horner, & Good, 2006).
Summary
SW-PBS builds a continuum of research-based strategies with a central focus on
increasing appropriate behavior. School-wide systems provide the processes, struc-
tures, and routines to prevent problem behavior; they promote early intervention at
the first signs of problem behavior; and they utilize comprehensive individual sup-
port plans. An instructional approach built on a central theme of teaching appropri-
ate behavior, building multiple opportunities for practice, and altering environments
to promote success is emphasized through a continuum of three levels of support:
universal, targeted, and individual.
RESEARCH TO DATE ON THE EFFICACY

OF SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT
An emerging body of research has shown that implementing a continuum of tiered
supports—(1) universals, (2) targeted/small group/Tier II, and (3) individual/
Tier III student support—will impact overall rates of problem behavior in school.
In addition, preliminary research has demonstrated improvements in behavior,
academic gains, and increases in instructional time following implementation of

interventions as part of a fully integrated approach across a continuum of sup-

ports. Research to date on the efficacy of each of the three levels is provided in this
section.
Universal Supports
Over the past decade, a growing body of research has demonstrated a multi-impact
on student social and academic behavior. Quasi experimental studies have dem-
onstrated impact on overall rates of problem behavior from preschool to high
school, including alternative settings (Barrett, Bradshaw, & Lewis-Palmer, 2008;
Bohanon et al., 2006; Chapman & Hofweber, 2000; Curtis, Van Horne, Robertson,
& Karvonen, 2010; Duda, Dunlap, Fox, Lentini, & Clarke, 2004; Farkas, Simon-
son, Migdole, Donovan, Clemens, Cicchese, 2012; Lohrmann-O’Rourke, Knoster,
Sabatine, Smith, Horvath, & Llewellyn, 2000; Nelson, Martella, & Galand, 1998;
Putnam, Luiselli, & Sunderland, 2002; Simonson, Britton, & Young, 2010); the
interactive impact on behavior and academics (Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011;
Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005; McIntosh, Chard, Boland, & Horner,
2006; McIntosh, Horner, Chard, Dickey, & Braun, 2008; McIntosh, Flannery, Sugai,
Braun, & Cochrane, 2008; McIntosh, Sadler, & Brown, 2012); as well as impact
on interventions targeted in the classroom and nonclassroom settings within the
continuum of SW-PBS (De Pry & Sugai, 2002; Hirsch, Lewis-Palmer, Sugai, &
Schnacker, 2004; Lewis, Colvin, & Sugai, 2000; Lewis, Powers, Kelk, & Newcomer,
2002; Putnam, Handler, Ramirez-Platt, & Luiselli, 2003; Stichter, Lewis, Richter, &
Johnson, 2006). Recently, several randomized control trial studies have confirmed
similar outcomes including proactive and sustained changes in disciplinary prac-
tices that have resulted in decreases in problem behavior and increases in appropri-
ate behavior (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Bradshaw, Reinke, Brown, Bevans,
& Leaf, 2008; Horner, Sugai, Smolkowski, Eber, Nakasato, Todd, & Esperanza,
2009), as well as the impact on overall school climate (Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans,
Ialongo, & Leaf, 2008; Bradshaw, Koth, Thorton, & Leaf, 2009) and the reduction of
specific behavioral challenges including bullying behavior (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, &
Leaf, in press; Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2012).
Tier II Supports
For an estimated 10–15% of students who require more intensive supports in
addition to the universal school-wide PBS system, several different “manualized”
interventions are commonly implemented. Example Tier II interventions include
check-in/check-out, social skills groups, and Check & Connect (Horner, Sugai, &
Anderson, 2010). Each of these interventions has a body of evidence indicating posi-
tive effects on socially important behavior change such as reductions in problem
behavior, improved social skills, increases in attendance, reduced incidence of drop-
out, or higher rates of student engagement. A brief description of current research
for each intervention follows.
Check-in/Check-out
Check-in/check-out (CICO) is a proactive, positive, research-supported self-

management intervention that combines a number of individually effective com-
ponents to be used with students identified at risk for behavioral concerns (Crone,
Hawken, & Horner, 2010). Numerous investigations show that the use of the CICO
intervention is associated with reductions in problem behavior and/or increases
in prosocial behavior (Filter et al., 2007; Hawken, 2006; Hawken & Horner, 2003;
Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007; McCurdy, Kunsch, & Reibstein, 2007; Mong,
Johnson, & Mong, 2011; Simonsen, Myers, & Briere, 2011; Todd, Campbell, Meyer, &
Horner, 2008). In addition, several studies also demonstrate that CICO can be deliv-
ered with fidelity in school settings using typical personnel (Campbell & Anderson,
2011; Campbell & Anderson, 2008; Ennis, Jolivette, Swoszowski, & Johnson, 2012;
Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007; Filter et al., 2007; Hawken, MacLeod, &
Rawlings, 2007; Hawken, MacLeod, & O’Neill, 2011; McIntosh, Campbell, Carter, &
Dickey, 2009; Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011; Simonsen, Myers, & Briere, 2011; Todd,
Campbell, Meyer, & Horner, 2008). Finally, student, family, and teacher participants
give positive ratings for the CICO intervention when surveyed about impact on prob-
lem behavior, improvement in academic outcomes, being worth the time and effort to
implement, and recommending it as a treatment for other children with similar chal-
lenges (Filter et al., 2007; Hawken & Horner, 2003; Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings,
2007; Hawken, MacLeod, & O’Neill, 2011; Lane et al., 2012; Mong, Johnson, & Mong,
2011; Simonsen, Myers, & Briere, 2011; Todd, Campbell, Meyer, & Horner, 2008).
Social Skills Instructional Groups

Two relatively recent studies provide examples of social skills instruction as a Tier II
intervention. First, Gresham, Bao Van, and Cook (2006) provided 60 hours of social
skills instruction for a group of elementary-level students using a commercially pub-
lished curriculum. In addition to small-group instruction led by a trained facilita-
tor, classroom teachers implemented differential reinforcement of other behaviors
as a strategy for promoting the generalization of skills across settings. Direct obser-
vation data indicated reductions in problem behavior for each of the participants.
In addition, teacher ratings of problem behavior and social skill use also improved
(Gresham, Bao Van, & Cook, 2006).
In a second example, students participated in a social skills group designed to increase
effective communication and appropriate play. Social skills lessons were supported by
the use of a self-management strategy, peer- and adult-mediated attention, and posi-
tive reinforcement for meeting behavioral goals (Marchant et al., 2007). In addition,
a unique aspect of the study was the purposeful selection of students identified with
internalizing characteristics. Results showed improvements for all participants.
Check & Connect

Check & Connect is an engagement model that incorporates the use of a mentor
who conducts regularly scheduled checks of alterable risk indicators (e.g., attendance,
work completion, grades, disciplinary events, credit accrual, etc.) with a structured
process for connecting with students and families (Christenson, Stout, & Pohl,
2012). Mentors provide specific feedback about student data, teach problem-solving
skills, and maintain ongoing positive relationships among students, families, and
school personnel. Early investigations conducted with high school–level partici-
pants identified with learning disabilities and/or emotional/behavioral disorders
showed that students who received the Check & Connect treatment were more likely
to stay enrolled in school, to persist through ninth grade, and to complete their
course assignments than were students in a control group who did not participate
in the program (Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998). In addition, students
in Check & Connect earned more credits during their first year of high school, were
more likely to be on track for graduation, and received better teacher ratings for
behavior and academic competence than did control students (Sinclair, Christenson,
Evelo, & Hurley, 1998). Subsequent studies of Check & Connect have expanded by
including students without disabilities and have examined effects across grade levels
spanning kindergarten through twelfth grade (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, &
Lehr, 2004; Kaibel, Sinclair, & Vanden Berk, 2008; Lehr, Sinclair, & Christenson,
2004; Sinclair & Kaibel, 2002).
Although each of these interventions, as well as others described in previous sec-
tions of the chapter, indicate positive outcomes when implemented in isolation, the
added value of providing small-group/targeted interventions within the framework
of a school-wide PBS system is less known, but evidence is beginning to emerge.
In one recent study, Nelson and colleagues (2009) used a quasi experimental lon-
gitudinal cohort design to examine the extent to which use of a three-tier model of
behavioral interventions was associated with prevention of problem behavior and
sustained behavioral improvements over time. Teacher ratings of problem behavior
and social skills were assessed pre- and postintervention (i.e., fall and spring dur-
ing the year of treatment) and then again at one- and two-year follow-up points
(i.e., spring of the next two consecutive years). Students in the Tier II group showed
immediate decreases in problem behavior, along with improved social skills when
the Tier II intervention was provided in the context of a universal prevention frame-
work (Nelson et al., 2009).
Tier III Supports

The application of universal and targeted interventions will greatly reduce but not
eliminate the number of students who require intense individualized support. What
is emerging from the field is that SW-PBS may increase the capacity of schools to
deliver more systematic and intensive targeted small-group and individual inter-
ventions (Crone, Hawken, & Bergstrom, 2007; Crone & Horner, 2003; Crone,
Horner, & Hawken, 2004). Preliminary data from pilot studies are showing that
functional-based interventions are outperforming traditional behavioral interven-
tions (Ingram, 2002; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005; Newcomer & Lewis,
2004) and that plans are of higher quality if linked to school-wide PBS systems
(McIntosh et al., 2008; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004). More research is needed to show
what additional benefit school-wide systems of PBS value-add to small-group and

individual student support plans (Farmer, Lane, Lee, Hamm, & Lamber, 2012;
Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009).
Limitations of the Research Base

The study of SW-PBS represents a move from studies that evaluate the behavioral
mechanism of single and small groups of students to large-scale randomized control
trials. To an extent, many of the application studies have been conducted within the
framework of scientific methodology, testing observable events with objective, relia-
ble, and quantifiable data and using replicable procedures. However, the processes of
SW-PBS represent a multicomponent package that is quite complex and bridges the
gap between basic and applied science. Although data to date have shown encourag-
ing results at the universal level, the value-add of the system approach in addressing
small-group/targeted and individual supports is best described as emerging (Brad-
shaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009). The challenge remains to identify under what
conditions the model yields significant outcomes and the active components that
contribute to those outcomes. The following section briefly describes some of the
issues associated with measuring large-scale system efforts to date.
Measures
The science that underlies PBS, applied behavior analysis, provides a methodology
for understanding and predicting target behaviors in a given context. As investigation
and application move from controlled situations such as laboratories and clinics to the
less structured school environment, greater flexibility is needed in using correlation
analysis, data sources, and case studies (Carr et al., 2002). Because SW-PBS interven-
tions are always multicomponent in nature, validity concerns arise due to the multiple
interacting variables that come into play. Such interaction makes it difficult to meas-
ure the impact of individual variables. Analysis must take into consideration multiple-
component interventions. Such analysis, however, does not meet the standards of the
single-variable experimentation necessary to ascribe causality. Applied research prac-
tices must be flexible enough to study the pragmatic effectiveness of multicomponent
interventions as well as the causal mechanisms of intervention package components to
explain why a model worked and to specify the active components of the model.
Connections to Individual Supports

In 1968, Baer, Wolf, and Risley established the importance of functional analysis to iden-
tify the environmental variables associated with the occurrence of target behaviors. In
so doing, they laid the foundation for the application of applied behavior analysis to
the study of human behavior and the functional relations between academic and social
changes in adult and child behaviors. In the ensuing years, compelling evidence has
accumulated to document the effectiveness of functional behavioral assessment and of
positive behavior interventions and supports as having direct relevance for addressing
disruptive and chronic problem behavior in schools (Blair, Umbreit & Bos, 1999;
Grow, Carr, & LeBlanc, 2009; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005; Lewis & Sugai,
1996a, 1996b). Although the technology exists to respond to the challenges of problem
behavior, it has not “fit” the unique problem context schools present (Lewis & Sugai,
1999; Sugai & Horner, 1999; Sugai et al., 2010). Research has yet to identify a well-
defined procedure that delivers precise, usable, valid information with the limited time
and resources available to school professionals (Farmer, Lane, Lee, Hamm, & Lamber,
2012). Zins and Ponti (1990) suggest that establishing a “host environment” that can
support and maintain evidence-based practices is essential to achieve specialized and
individualized behavior supports for students with chronic problem behaviors and at-
risk backgrounds. The systems perspective of SW-PBS provides the requisite struc-
ture to support the adoption and sustained use of effective practices (Sugai, Horner,
& Sprague, 1999); however, to date, the systemic examination of function-based indi-
vidualized interventions within the context of a complete SW-PBS continuum has not
been undertaken (Farmer, Lane, Lee, Hamm, & Lamber, 2012).
As demonstrated in the research previously reviewed, a school-wide systems
approach to PBS effectively reduces chronic challenging behavior, promotes cultures
of social competence, and meets the needs of children with significant behavioral
challenges, creating a host environment that emphasizes the development of a posi-
tive school climate, practical policies, well-defined physical spaces, and monitoring
systems to improve academic and social outcomes for all students, but especially those
who are considered at risk for behavior problems. With school-wide systems of PBS
in place, schools increase their capacity to support students who present challenges by
shifting away from traditional responses of solving behavior problems through sus-
pension and exclusion to an approach that emphasizes the development of specially
designed and individualized interventions based on functional behavioral assessments
to generate an understanding of how the social and instructional context influence an
individual student’s behavior. In doing so, these schools have redefined the roles and
responsibilities of educators and all school personnel for promoting positive behavioral
interventions, strategies, and support for students with chronically challenging behav-
ior. Individual systems of PBS focus on integrated, team-based planning and problem
solving to design individual support plans to prevent, reduce, and replace problem
behaviors and to develop, maintain, and strengthen socially desirable behaviors. From
research and application, we have learned the importance of a school-wide foundation
of integrated systems, collaboration, and the development of proactive, practical inter-
ventions. When school personnel routinely reinforce positive behaviors and dedicate
themselves to teaching social skills, then they increase the likelihood that individual
support plans will be implemented with a high degree of integrity.
CONCLUSION
School-wide PBS is defined as consisting of systemic and individualized strate-
gies implemented through a continuum of supports based on data-based decision
making. The literature on behavioral problems is clear in that early intervention
and prevention are our best hopes at making schools safe and productive learning
environments (Ziglar, Taussig, & Black, 1992). Unfortunately, many educators

have been slow to implement best practice until problems become chronic and
entrenched (Kauffman, 1999), even though recent research has shown a clear
link between “minor” discipline problems and later significant problems (Skiba &
Peterson, 2000). Given that the school-wide PBS in essence is a process rather than
a curriculum or packaged program, we are not suggesting that it is “the answer.”
Yet work to date has demonstrated that schools can implement best practices at
the prevention and early intervention levels. Essential components that charac-
terize each level of the continuum include empirically validated practices such as
clearly defined student expectations, strategies to teach expectations, and provid-
ing feedback during practice opportunities. The intensity of application of these
basic components are then matched to the intensity of problem behavior, and
connections are made to other resources necessary to support students and their
families. The selection, application, and evaluation of practices are simultaneously
supported through data-based decision making, using a team process that sup-
ports faculty and staff.
NOTE
1. The preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by the Technical Assistance Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports and by a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S.
Department of Education (H326S980003). Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the posi-
tion of the U.S. Department of Education, and such endorsements should not be inferred. For information
about the Center, go to www.pbis.org, or for information related to this manuscript, contact Tim Lewis at
[email protected].
REFERENCES
Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achieve-
ment and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 13, 3–16.
Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check & Connect: The importance
of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 95–113.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimension of applied behavior analysis. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–99.
Barrett, S., Bradshaw, C., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2008). Maryland state-wide PBIS initiative. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 10, 105–114.
Benazzi, L., Horner, R. H., & Good, R. H. (2006). Effects of behavior support team composition on the techni-
cal adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support plans. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 160–170.
Blair, K., Umbreit, J., & Bos, C. (1999). Using functional assessment and children’s preferences to improve the
behavior of young children with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24(2), 151–166.
Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K. L., Minnis-Kim, M. J., Anderson-Harriss, S., Moroz, K. B., Hicks, K. J.,
Kasper, B. B., Culos, C., Sailor, W., & Pigott, T. D. (2006). Schoolwide application of positive behavior
support in an urban high school: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 131–145.
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The impact of school-wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School
Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462–473.
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school climate through school-
wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness
trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), 100–115.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness
trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148.
Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a ran-
domized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 1–26.
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions
and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics. Online October 15, 2012.
Brooks, K., V. Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (1999). School house hype: Two years later. San Franciso: Center
on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.
Burns, M. K., & Boice, C. H. (2009). Comparison of the relationship between words retained and intelligence
for three instructional strategies among students with below-average IQ. School Psychology Review,
38(2), 284–292.
Campbell, A., & Anderson, C. (2008). Enhancing effects of targeted interventions with function-based sup-
port. Behavioral Disorders, 33(4), 233–245.
Campbell, A., & Anderson, C. M. (2011). Check-in/check-out: A systematic evaluation and component anal-
ysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 315–326.
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Anderson, J. L., Ablbin, R. W.,
Koegel, L. K., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of
Positive Behavior Intervention, 4, 4–16.
Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture (1997). Education as crime prevention. Occasional Paper Series
No. 2: New York: Author.
Chapman, D., & Hofweber, C. (2000). Effective behavior support in British Columbia. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 2 (4), 235–237.
Christenson, S. L., Stout, K., & Pohl, A. (2012). Check & Connect: A comprehensive student engagement inter-
vention: Implementing with fidelity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community
Integration.
Christle, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation, academic
achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction. Journal of Behavioral Educa-
tion, 12(3), 147–165.
Colvin, G., Sugai, G., & Patching, W. (1993). Pre-correction: An instructional approach for managing prob-
lem behavior. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 143–150.
Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Snyder, A. L., & Marsh, S. (2006). Classwide intervention: Effective instruc-
tion makes a difference. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 24–30.
Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D. P., Thursby, D., Plagmann, L. A., Harding, J., Millard, T., & Derby, M. (1992). Analysis
of the effects of task preferences, task demands, and adult attention on child behavior in outpatient and
classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(4), 823–840.
Crone, D., Hawken, L., & Bergstrom, M., (2007). A demonstration of training, implementing and using func-
tional behavioral assessment in 10 elementary and middle school settings. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 9(1), 15–29.
Crone, D., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools?: The behavior
education program (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Crone, D. A. & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in schools: Functional behav-
ioral assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken, L. S. (2004). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior
education program. New York: Guilford.
Curtis, R., Van Horne, J., Robertson, P., & Karvonen, M. (2010). Outcomes of a school-wide positive behavior
support program. Professional School Counseling, 13(3), 159–164.
De Pry, R. L., & Sugai, G. (2002). The effect of active supervision and precorrection on minor behavioral
incidents in a sixth grade general education classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 255–267.
DeVoe, J., Peter, K., Ruddy, S., Miller, A., Planty, M., Snyder, T., & Rand, M. (2003). Indicators of school crime
and safety (NCES 2004004). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Edu-
cation Statistics.
Duda, M.A., Dunlap, G., Fox, L., Lentini, R., & Clarke, S. (2004). An experimental evaluation of positive behavior
support in a community preschool program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24(3), 143–155.
Elam, S. J., Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (1996). 28th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s atti-
tudes toward the public schools. Kappan, 78(1), 41–59.
Ennis, R. P., Jolivette, K., Swoszowski, N. C., & Johnson, M. L. (2012). Secondary prevention efforts at a resi-
dential facility for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Function-based check-in, check-
out. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 29(2), 79–102.
Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom
behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 288–310.

Farkas, M., Simonson, B., Migdole, S., Donovan, M., Clemens, K., & Cicchese, V. (2012). Schoolwide positive
behavior support in an alternative school setting: An evaluation of fidelity, outcomes and social validity
of Tier I implementation. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2 (4), 275–288.
Farmer, T. W., Lane, K. L., Lee, D. L., Hamm, J. V., & Lamber, K. (2012). The social functions of antisocial
behavior: Considerations for school violence prevention strategies for students with disabilities. Behav-
ioral Disorders, 37, 149–162.
Filter, K. J., McKenna, M. K., Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., & Watson, J. (2007). Check in/check
out: A post-hoc evaluation of an efficient, secondary-level targeted intervention for reducing problem
behaviors in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1), 69–84.
Gresham, F., Bao Van, M., & Cook, C. R. (2006). Social skills training for teaching replacement behaviors:
Remediating acquisition deficits in at-risk students. Behavioral Disorders, 31(4), 363–377.
Grow, L. L., Carr, J., & LeBlanc, L. (2009). Treatments for attention-maintained problem behavior: Empirical
support and clinical recommendations. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 10, 70–92.
Gunter, P. & Reed, T. M. (1997). Academic instruction of children with emotional and behavioral disorders
using scripted lessons. Preventing School Failure, 42, 33–37.
Hawken, L. S. (2006). School psychologists as leaders in the implementation of a targeted intervention: The
behavior education program. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 1, 91–111.
Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Evaluation of a targeted intervention within a schoolwide system of
behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(3), 225–240.
Hawken, L., & MacLeod, S., & O’Neill, R. (2011). Effects of function of problem behavior on the responsive-
ness to the Behavior Education Program. Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 551–574.
Hawken, L. S., MacLeod, K. S., & Rawlings, L. (2007). Effects of the behavior education program (BEP) on
office discipline referrals of elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(2),
94–101.
Haydon, T., Conroy, M. A., Scott, T. M., Sindelar, P.T., Barber, B. R., & Orlando, A. (2010). A comparison of
three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behaviors. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 1, 27–40.
Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S. Public
Schools: 1996–97 (NCES 98–030). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.
Hirsch, E. J., Lewis-Palmer, T., Sugai, G., & Schnacker, L. (2004). Using school bus discipline referral data in
decision making: Two case studies. Preventing School Failure, 48, 4, 4–9.
Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G., (2005). School-wide positive behavior support: An alternative approach to disci-
pline in schools. (pp. 359–390). In L. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Positive Behavior Support. New York:
Guilford Press.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. A. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive
behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8), 1–16.
Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized,
wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary
schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133–145.
Ingersoll, S., & LeBoeuf, K. (1997, February). Reaching out to youth out of the education mainstream. Juvenile
Justice Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1–11.
Ingram, K. (2002). Comparing effectiveness of intervention strategies that are based on functional behavioral
assessment information and those that are contra-indicated by the assessment. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Eugene, University of Oregon.
Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the
effectiveness of FBA indicated and contra-indicated intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 7, 224–236.
Kaibel, C., Sinclair, M. F., & VandenBerk, E. (2008). Check & Connect/AchieveMpls Bush Foundation interim
report. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools.
Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learn-
ing problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Kauffman, J. M. (1999). How we prevent the prevention of emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional
Children, 65, 448–468.
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Oakes, W. P., Lambert, W., Cox, M., & Hankins, K. (2012). A validation of the
student risk screening scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Patterns in rural and urban
elementary schools. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 244–270.
Lehr, C. A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2004). Addressing student engagement and truancy preven-
tion during the elementary years: A replication study of the Check & Connect model. Journal of Educa-
tion for Students Placed At Risk, 9(3), 279–301.
Lewis, T. J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (2000). The effects of precorrection and active supervision on the recess
behavior of elementary school students. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 109–121.
Lewis, T. J., Jones, S. E. L., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2010). School-wide positive behavior support and stu-
dents with emotional/behavioral disorders: Implications for prevention, identification and intervention.
Exceptionality 18(2), 82–93.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1996a). Functional assessment of problem behavior: A pilot investigation of the
comparative and interactive effects of teacher and peer social attention on students in general education
settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(1), 1–19.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1996b). Descriptive and experimental analysis of teacher and peer attention and the
use of assessment-based Intervention to improve pro-social behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education,
6(1), 7–24.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide man-
agement. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1–24.
Lewis, T. J., Powers, L. J., Kelk, M. J., & Newcomer, L. (2002). Reducing problem behaviors on the playground:
An investigation of the application of school-wide positive behavior supports. Psychology in the Schools,
39, 181–190.
Lockwood, D. (1997). Violence among middle school and high school students: Analysis and implications for
prevention. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
Lohrmann-O’Rourke, S., Knoster, T., Sabatine, K., Smith, D., Horvath, G., & Llewellyn, G. (2000). School-
wide application of PBS in the Bangor Area School District. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
2(4), 238–240.
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole-school positive behaviour
support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology,
25(2–3), 183–198.
Marchant, M. R., Solano, B. R., Fisher, A. K., Caldarella, P., Young, K. R., & Renshaw, T. L. (2007). Modifying
socially withdrawn behavior: A playground intervention for students with internalizing behaviors. Psy-
chology in the Schools, 44(8), 779–794.
Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(4),
467–478.
Mayer, G. R. (2001). Antisocial behavior: It causes and prevention within our schools. Education & Treatment
of Children, 24, 414–429.
Mayer, G. R., & Leone, P. (1999). A structural analysis of school violence and disruption: Implications for
creating safer schools. Education & Treatment of Children, 22(3), 333–356.
Mayer, G. R., Mitchell, L., Clementi, T., Clement-Robertson, E., Myatt, R., & Vullara, D. T., (1993). A dropout
prevention program for at-risk high school students: Emphasizing consulting to promote positive class-
room environments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 135–146.
McCurdy, B. L., Kunsch, C., & Reibstein, S. (2007). Secondary prevention in the urban schools: Implementing
the behavior education program. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 2–19.
McIntosh, K., Campbell, A. L., Carter, D. R., & Dickey, C. R. (2009). Differential effects of a tier two behavior
intervention based on function of problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(2), 82–93.
McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-
wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early ele-
mentary grades. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 146–154.
McIntosh, K., Flannery, K. B., Sugai, G., Braun, D., & Cochrane, K. L. (2008). Relationships between academ-
ics and problem behavior in the transition from middle school to high school. Journal of Positive Behav-
ior Interventions, 10(4), 243–255.
McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., and Braun, D. H. (2008). Reading skills and function
of problem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education, 42, 131–147.
McIntosh, K., Sadler, C., & Brown, J. A. (2012). Kindergarten reading skill level and change as risk factors for
chronic problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(1) 17–28.
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior manage-
ment program to improve school-wide positive behavior support. Education & Treatment of Children,
24, 448–479.
Mitchell, B. S., Stormont, M. A., & Gage, N. A. (2011). Tier 2 interventions within the context of school-wide
positive behavior support. Behavioral Disorders, 36(4).
Miller-Richter, M., Lewis, T. J., & Hagar, J. (2012). The relationship between principal leadership skills and school-
wide positive behavior support: An exploratory study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 69–77.
Mong, M., Johnson, K., & Mong, K., (2011). Effects of check in/check out on behavioral indices and math-
ematics generalization. Behavioral Disorders, 36(4), 225–240.
Myers, C. L., & Holland, K. L. (2000). Classroom behavioral interventions: Do teachers consider the function
of the behavior? Psychology in the Schools, 37(3), 271–280.
Nelson, J. R., Duppong Hurley, K., Synhorst, L., Epstein, M. H., Stage, S., & Buckley, J. (2009). The child out-
comes of a behavior model. Exceptional Children, 76(1), 7–30.
Nelson, J. R., Martella, R., & Galand, B. (1998). The effects of teaching school expectations and establishing
a consistent consequence on formal office disciplinary actions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 6, 153–161.
Newcomer, L., Colvin, G., & Lewis, T. J. (2009). Behavior supports in nonclassroom settings. In W. Sailor,
G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 497–520). New York:
Springer.
Newcomer, L., & Lewis, T. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment: An investigation of assessment reli-
ability and effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
12(3), 168–181.
Peterson, G. J., Beekley, C. Z., Speaker, K. M., & Pietrzak, D. (1996). An examination of violence in three rural
school districts. Rural Educator, 19(3), 25–32.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.
Powell, D., Fixsen, D., Dunlap, G., Smith, B., & Fox, L. (2007). A synthesis of knowledge relevant to pathways
of service delivery for young children with or at risk of challenging behavior. Journal of Early Interven-
tion, 29, 81–106.
Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., Ramirez-Platt, C. M., & Luiselli, J. K. (2003). Improving student bus-riding
behavior through a whole-school intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 583–589.
Putnam, R. F., Luiselli, J. K., & Sunderland, M. (2002). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support interven-
tion in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 182–188.
Rose, L. C., Gallup, A. (2006). The 38th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward
the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 1, 41–56.
Skiba, R. (2002). Special education and school discipline: A precarious balance. Behavioral Disorders, 27,
81–97.
Simonson, B., Britton, L., & Young, D. (2010). School-wide positive behavior support in an alternative school
setting: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 180–191.
Simonson, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom
management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351–380.
Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & Briere, D. E. (2011). Comparing a behavioral check-in/check-out (CICO) inter-
vention to standard practice in an urban middle school setting using an experimental group design.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(1), 31–48.
Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & DeLuca, C. (2010). Providing teachers with training and performance feedback to
increase use of three classroom management skills: Prompts, opportunities to respond, and reinforce-
ment. Teacher Education in Special Education, 33, 300–318.
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., & Hurley, C. M. (1998). Dropout prevention for youth with dis-
abilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65, 1, 7–21.
Sinclair, M. F., & Kaibel, C. (2002). Dakota County: Secondary Check & Connect programs: School Success
Check & Connect program evaluation final summary report. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Insti-
tute on Community Integration.
Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. L. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response.
Exceptional Children, 66, 335–356.
Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspensions: Disciplinary intervention
in middle schools. Education & Treatment of Children, 20, 295–315.
Skiba, R., Reynolds, C. R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J. C., & Garcia-Vazquez, E. (2006). Are zero toler-
ance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psycho-
logical Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (August), 40–51.
Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. L. Richter, M., & Johnson, N. (2006). Assessing antecedent variables: The effects of
instructional variables on student outcomes through in-service and peer coaching professional develop-
ment models. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 665–692.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Preferred processes and practices. Effec-
tive School Practices, 17(4), 10–22.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Algozzine, R., Barrett, S., Lewis, T., Anderson, C., Bradley, R., Choi, J. H., Dunlap, G.,
Eber, L., George, H., Kincaid, D., McCart, A., Nelson, M., Newcomer, L., Putnam, R., Riffel, L., Rovins,
M., Sailor, W., & Simonsen, B. (2010). School-wide positive behavior support: Implementers’ blueprint and
self-assessment. Eugene: University of Oregon.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor,
W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, W., Wickham, D., Ruef, M., & Wilcox, B. (2000). Applying positive behav-
ioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Washington, DC: OSEP Center of Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Sprague, J. (1999). Functional-assessment-based behavior support planning: Research
to practice to research. Behavioral Disorders, 24(3), 253–257.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1994). Achieving educational excellence: Behavior analysis for achieving
classroom and schoolwide behavior change. San Marcos, CA: Western Image.
Sutherland, K. S., Lewis-Palmer, T., Stichter, J., & Morgan, P. L. (2008). Examining the influence of teacher
behavior and classroom context on the behavioral and academic outcomes for students with emotional
or behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 223–233.
Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). Exploring the relationship between increased opportunities to
respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD. Reme-
dial and Special Education, 22(2), 113–121.
Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. (2000). Effects of varying rates of behavior-specific praise on
the on-task behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2), 2–8.
Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). The effects of a targeted intervention to
reduce problem behaviors: Elementary school implementation of check-in check-out. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 10(1), 46–55.
Todd, A. W., Horner, R., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1997). Individualizing school-wide discipline for students
with chronic problem behaviors: A team approach. Effective School Practices, 17, 72–82.
U.S. Department of Education (1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public schools: 1996–97. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education (2000a). Effective alternative strategies: Grant competition to reduce student sus-
pensions and expulsions and ensure educational progress of suspended and expelled students. Washington,
DC: Safe and Drug Free School Programs, OMB#1810–0551.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000b). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000). Report of the Surgeon General’s conference on chil-
dren’s mental health: A national action agenda. Washington, DC: Author.
Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). The impact of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interven-
tions and Supports (SWPBIS) on bullying and peer rejection: A randomized controlled effectiveness
trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 116(2), 149–156.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, J. (1996). Integrated
approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193–256.
Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, R. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-based practices
(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ziglar, E., Taussig, C., & Black, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention: A promising preventative for juvenile
delinquency. American Psychologist, 47, 997–1006.
Zins, J. E., & Ponti, C. R. (1990). Best practices in school-based consultation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.),
Best practices in school psychology—II (pp. 673–694). Washington, DC: National Association of School
Psychologists.

RoutledgeHandbooks 9780203074114 Chapter3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RoutledgeHandbooks 9780203074114 Chapter3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RoutledgeHandbooks 9780203074114 Chapter3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.

Handbook of Classroom Management

Edmund T. Emmer, Edward J. Sabornie

School-Wide Positive Behavior Support

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

settings (Miller-Richter, Lewis, & Hagar, 2012).

Factors That Contribute to the Problem

“get tough” responses (e.g., containment, punishment, suspension, or zero tolerance)

What Is Positive Behavior Support?

dents across multiple settings and applies a three-tiered approach to prevention

SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT

A statement of purpose is used to capture the proactive objectives of the disci-

The use of data to assess current conditions, to guide implementation, and to

evaluate the effectiveness of procedures is a critical feature of SW-PBS. An effi-

A second strategy for nonclassroom settings is active supervision. Elements of

attention in the classroom can result in an increase in appropriate behaviors and a

decrease in disruptive behaviors. An effective classroom teacher strives for a ratio of

Tier III Supports

levels, approximately 5–10% of students in a school will require intense, individual-

RESEARCH TO DATE ON THE EFFICACY

academic gains, and increases in instructional time following implementation of

interventions as part of a fully integrated approach across a continuum of sup-

Check-in/check-out (CICO) is a proactive, positive, research-supported self-

Social Skills Instructional Groups

Check & Connect

Tier III Supports

what additional benefit school-wide systems of PBS value-add to small-group and

Limitations of the Research Base

Connections to Individual Supports

environments (Ziglar, Taussig, & Black, 1992). Unfortunately, many educators

behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 288–310.

You might also like