An Educator's Guide to Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Inteventions and Supports. Jason E. Harlacher
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