DRAFT: January 11, 2006 GS/LE/RH
National Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and SupportsCenter on Behavioral Education and Research
University of Connecticut
Talking Points on
School-wide Positive Behavior Support & School-based Mental Health[1]
Introduction & Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe the context, guiding principles, and features of a school-wide approach to positive behavior support that reinforce the objectives and activities of the reauthorization of ESEA and NCLB. A case study example and selected supporting references also are provided.
School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS[2]) emphasizes the adoption of effective systemic and individualized behavioral interventions for achieving important social and learning outcomes while preventing problem behaviors (Center on PBIS, 2000). SWPBS involves the integration of valued outcomes, data-based decision making, science of human behavior, validated practices, and systems change procedures.
Status Statements
The following statements provide a rationale for adopting a school-wide approach to positive behavior support:
1. “Get tough” punishment oriented approaches to classroom control and school discipline are ineffective and often counterproductive.
2. The existing scientific knowledge base for teaching academic content, improving social behavior, and enhancing school climate is NOT uniformly adopted, accurately implemented, appropriately contextualized, or sustained.
3. The academic and behavior link is clear: Good instruction is one of our best behavior management tools, and preventive behavior management is one of our best instructional support strategies.
4. Students with high emotional, social, and behavior needs and their families require individualized, comprehensive, and constructive interventions and support systems.
5. Intensive individualized emotional and behavioral support interventions work better as part of comprehensive continuum of behavior support.
Kauffman, 2005; Kutash et al., 2006; Mayer, 1995; McEvoy et al., 2000; Patterson et al., 1992; Skiba et al., 1999; Skiba et al., 2000; Walker et al., 1996; Walker et al., 2005Guiding Principles
The following principles or tenets guide the adoption and implementation of SWPBS:
1. Prevention must be a priority in all intervention efforts for emotional and behavioral problems, that is, preventing their (a) development, (b) future occurrences, and (c) worsening.
2. Priority must be directed toward research-based interventions and practices.
3. A full continuum of effective, efficient, and relevant academic and behavior interventions and supports is needed to support all students and their families.
4. A comprehensive system of school-based mental health must unify and integrate education, public health, child and family welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health.
5. Research-to-practice must consider the careful translation and adaptation of research-based interventions and practices to real living, teaching, and learning environments.
6. Self-assessment, continuous progress monitoring, and systematic data-based decision making must guide selection, adoption, adaptation, implementation, and evaluation of intervention decisions.
7. Research-based practices must be supported directly and formally by establishing local behavioral capacity for leadership, coordination, training, evaluation, and political support.
Adelman et al., 1998; APA, 1994; Anderson et al., 2000; Biglan, 1995; Carnine, 1997, 1995; Carr et al., 1999; Car et al., 2002; Colvin et al., 1993; Epstein et al., 1998; Greenberg et al., 2003; Greenwood et al., 1993; Gresham et al., 2006; Morrison et al., 1997School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
The SWPBS approach has the following features:
1. SWPBS is not an intervention, curriculum, or program, but instead, a systems approach for the efficient adoption and implementation of effective and relevant behavioral interventions in schools.
2. SWPBS is not just for students in special education or with disabilities, but for ALL students for whom academic achievement, social behavior success, and self-management are important.
3. SWPBS involves a formal investment in the establishment of local behavioral competence, capacity, and priority.
4. SWPBS emphasizes the achievement of valued outcomes that are defined by systematic self-assessment, achieved through the use of effective and individualized interventions, and supported through systems of continuous regeneration for implementation fidelity, durability, and controlled expansion.
Anderson et al., 2005; Carr et al., 1999; Carr et al., 2002; Horner et al., 2005; Horner et al., 2000; Lewis et al., 1999; Safran et al., 2003; Sugai et al., 2002; Sugai et al., 2000; Utley et al., 2002Research Statements
The following statements summarize published empirically-based findings on the impact of the interventions and practices of SWPBS:
1. Schools can implement SWPBS with fidelity when supported by local trainers and coaches. These schools are perceived by their educators as being safer teaching and learning environments, begin to experience increases in proportion of 3rd graders who meet or exceed the state reading benchmarks, and experience decreases in their rates of office discipline referrals for major rule infractions
Colvin, Kame’enui, & Sugai, 1993; Horner et al., in preparation; Lewis et al., 1998; Metzler et al., 2001; Nelson et al., 1998; Safran & Oswald, 2003; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997.
2. Rates of problem behaviors in hallways, playgrounds, cafeterias, and other nonclassroom settings can be decreased by improving the systematic and consistent use of active supervision, positive feedback, and social skills instruction
Colvin et al, 1997; Heck et al., 2001; Kartub et al., 2000; Leedy et al., 2004; Lewis et al., 2000; Lewis et al., 1998; Nelson et al., 1996; Putnam et al., 2003; Todd et al., 2002.
3. Students with serious problem behavior can benefit from positive behavioral interventions that are based on information from functional behavior assessments.
Fairbanks et al., 2007; Ingram et al., 2005; Todd et al., 1999
4. Improvements in student behavior and school climate are related to improvements in academic outcomes.
Fleming et al., 2005; Kellam et al., 1998; McIntosh et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 1996; Wentzel, 1993
5. Schools that invest in comprehensive school reform efforts and emphasize teaching social skills, parent involvement, academic and curricular restructuring, positive and preventive classroom and school-wide discipline are likely to experience decreases in antisocial behavior (e.g., vandalism, harassment, aggression).
Gottfredson et al., 1993, 1996; Lipsey et al.,1993; Mayer et al., 1993; Tolan et al., 1994.
Case Study Example of PBIS Implementation
January, 2006
www.pbisillinois.org
In eight years of PBIS implementation, Illinois has demonstrated the development of a state-level implementation of evidence-based discipline practices. Evaluation results indicate (a) schools were not using school-wide PBIS practices prior to receiving technical assistance; (b) a structured training process delivered by Illinois trainers has been linked to high-fidelity implementation of PBIS; (c) when schools implement to criterion, they are likely to sustain use of PBIS practices and systems; and (c) schools implementing PBIS to criterion have reductions in problem behaviors. In addition, results from a formal research study employing a randomized control trial design indicated that implementation of school-wide PBIS was causally linked to improved (a) perception of school safety, and (b) proportion of third graders meeting state reading standards.
Evaluation results indicate that schools implementing PBIS in Illinois experience increases in the frequency of specialized interventions for at-risk students. These descriptive data suggest that
o Schools can develop and sustain their capacity for systematic implementation of PBIS, including the use of research-based interventions for students with higher level needs.
o Schools that accurately implement school-wide PBIS can have fewer students exhibiting behavior problems, and can implement specialized interventions for small groups and individual students at a higher rate. These results suggest that students with mental health needs are more likely to get effective interventions in a timely manner if the school is implementing school-wide PBIS with measured fidelity.
o Schools implementing universal and secondary intervention PBIS systems can have lower rates of special education testing/placement of students and can implement more behavioral and academic interventions sooner.
o Students with IEP’s in PBIS schools often spend more time in general education settings, and can experience increases in overall academic gains
o Students with comprehensive social/emotional needs can experience success when the schools have implemented a System of Care wraparound approach within a PBIS framework. Results over the past four years for more than 50 students indicate that many students experience
§ Decreases in placement risk at home, school, and community
§ Decreases in suspensions and office discipline referrals
§ Increases in academic and behavioral functioning as reported by teachers
§ Increases in social/emotional functioning as reported by families and teachers
Selected References
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1998). Reframing mental health in schools and expanding school reform. Educational Psychologist, 33, 135-152.
American Psychological Association (1994). Violence and youth: Psychology’s response. Washington, D. C.: Author.
Anderson, C. M., & Freeman, K. A. (2000). Positive behavior support: Expanding the application of applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analyst, 23(1), 85-94.
Anderson, C. M., & Kincaid, D. (2005). Applying behavior analysis to school violence and discipline problems: Schoolwide positive behavior support. Behavior Analyst, 28, 49-63.
Biglan, A. (1995). Translating what we know about the context of antisocial behavior in to a lower prevalence of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 479-492.
Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63, 513-521.
Carnine, D. (1995). Trustworthiness, useability, and accessibility of educational research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 251-258.
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., & Sailor, W. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 4-16.
Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J. G., Magito-McLaughlin, D., McAtee, M. L., et al. (1999). Positive behavior support for people with developmental disabilities: A research synthesis. American Association on Mental Retardation Monograph Series. Washington, D. C.: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Colvin, G., Kameenui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with behavior problems in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.
Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R., & Lee, Y. (1997). Effect of active supervision and precorrection on transition behaviors of elementary students. School Psychology Quarterly,12, 344-363.
Epstein, M. H., Kutash, K., & Duchnowski, A. (Eds.) (1998). Outcomes for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders and their families: Programs and evaluation best practices. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73, 288-310.
Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W. Mazza, J. J., & Gruman, D. H. (2005). Do social and behavioral characteristics targeted by preventive interventions predict standardized test scores and grades? Journal of School Health, 75, 342-350.
Gottfredson, D.C., Gottfredson, G.D., & Hybl, L.G, (1993). Managing adolescent behavior: A multiyear, multischool study. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 179-215.
Gottfredson, D.C., Gottfredson, G.D., & Skroban, S. (1996). A multimodel school based prevention demonstration. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 97-115.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466-474.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Bulgren, J. (1993). Current challenges to behavioral technology in the reform of schooling: Large-scale, high-quality implementation and sustained use of effective educational practices. Education and Treatment of Children, 16(4), 401-404.
Gresham, F. M., Van, M. B., & Cook, C. R. (2006). Social skills training for teaching replacement behaviors: Remediating acquisition deficits in at-risk students. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 363-377.
Heck, A., Collins, J., & Peterson, L. (2001). Decreasing children’s risk taking on the playground. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 349-352.
Horner, R.H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive behavior support. In L. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior support plans (pp. 359-390). New York: Guilford Press.
Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2000). School-wide behavior support: An emerging initiative (special issue). Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 231-233.
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.
Kartub, D., Taylor-Greene, S., March, R.E., & Horner, R.H. (2000). Reducing hallway noise: A systems approach. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 179-182.
Kauffman, J. (2005). Characteristics of emotional and behavior disorders of children and youth (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Kellam, S.G., Mayer, L. S., Rebok, G.W., & Hawkins, W. E., (1998). Effects of improving achievement on aggressive behavior and of improving aggressive behavior on achievement through two preventive interventions: An investigation of causal paths. In B.P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Adversity, stress, and psychopathology (p. 486-505). London: Oxford University Press.
Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Lynn, N. (2006). School-based mental health: An empirical guide for decision-makers. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. The Louis de la Parte Florida mental Health Institute. Department of Child and Family Studies. Research and Training Center for Mental Health.
Leedy, A., Bates, P., & Safran, S. P. (2004). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Improving hallway behavior using positive behavior supports. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 130-139.
Lewis, T. J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (2000). The effects of pre-correction and active supervision on the recess behavior of elementary school students. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 109-121.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive school-wide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 1-24.
Lewis, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a school-wide system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide scoal skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.
Lewis, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a school-wide system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.