Abstract
Sustaining School-Wide Position Behavior Interventions and Supports
Assessing the adoption of evidence-based interventions is an important goal; however, determining how to sustain those practices after outside resources and training have ended is equally (if not more) important. To date, research has failed to identify variables that are consistently associated with the continued use of school interventions and practices. McIntosh and his colleagues help us understand some of the variables that influence sustainability of School-Wide Position Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS). They examined implementation at three time points across 5 years with a large sample of over 3,000 schools. Their findings suggest the particular importance of state-level systems for sustaining SWPBIS implementation with high fidelity. About the study, Kent McIntosh stated, Although some of our results were just as we predicted, we were a little surprised about others. In keeping with previous research on SWPBIS, we found that school characteristics (such as student enrollment or school location) were not strongly related to sustained implementation, which is comforting. However, we were not expecting states to play such an important role in sustainability. So much research has focused on variables at the school and district, but state variables had a stronger influence. We need to know more about what state teams can do to promote sustainability of school practices.
Making Check in Check Out More Effective
Check In Check Out is the most frequently used Tier 2 intervention in schools implementing SWPBIS. Given its widespread use, an important question is whether it can be modified for increased effectiveness with individual students. In their study with two seventh-grade students, McDaniel and Bruhn first modified the standard 80% goal the students needed to earn to receive reinforcement. The level of the participants’ challenging behavior suggested that a lower goal would be more appropriate. Indeed, the behavior of both participants improved with this more achievable goal. Subsequently, after the students were consistently meeting the lower goal, the researchers gradually and systematically increased the criteria needed to receive reinforcement, until the participants eventually achieved a goal of 85%. The modifications were simple and required essentially no additional teacher resources, yet greatly improved student behavior. This study has important implications for improving the effectiveness for all Tier 2 interventions. Sara McDaniel offered the following thoughts about the study: In an effort to extend the excellent work by Crone, Horner, and Hawken on Check-in/Check-out as a tier 2 intervention, daily goals were individualized based on level of performance. The results of this simple modification were positive which provides further evidence that tier 2 interventions can be matched to student need and individualized, while remaining efficient and improving effectiveness. This study also sought to extend the literature by including female participants at the middle school level with extensive histories of challenging behavior.
Understanding Implementation Challenges of SWPBIS at the Secondary School Level
System change can be difficult for any organization and introduction of SWPBIS is no different. For this reason, staff support or “buy in” for a new practice is recommended for success. Research and practice, however, suggest that gaining staff buy in is particularly challenging at the secondary level. Feuerborn and her colleagues help us to better understand the concerns and needs of middle and high school teachers when adopting and implementing SWPBIS. Teachers across nine school districts were asked open-ended questions and responses were analyzed using qualitative methodology. Nine themes were identified regarding concerns and nine pertaining to needs. Further, themes were compared across schools with high and low levels of SWPBIS implementation. Interesting findings emerged with some schools reporting similar importance of certain themes, regardless of level of implementation, while others differed across high and low implementing schools. Lead author Laura Feuerborn provided further insight about the study: Notably, teachers across all schools and all levels of SWPBIS implementation voiced concern for a lack of staff consensus and a need for more collaboration. Thus, middle and high school teachers may need more time to work together to achieve a shared vision and feel supported throughout the implementation process. Teachers in our study also voiced concern for factors related to educational change in general (e.g., adequate resources, support from administrators) as well as concern for factors specific to the implementation of SWPBIS in their schools. Clearly, it is important that we carefully consider and plan for aspects related to both systemic change and SWPBIS.
The Importance of Positive and Proactive Family Engagement
A great deal of research indicates that parent involvement in their child’s education results in improved outcomes. Unfortunately, schools often fail to solicit active parent involvement until behavior becomes problematic. Further, as children age, connecting with their parents and obtaining important information becomes increasingly challenging. Moore and his colleagues hypothesized that focusing on student strengths and needs using a brief assessment would encourage proactive parent involvement and provide for a mechanism for identifying students in need of support. The authors developed the Positive Family Support–Strengths and Needs Assessment (PFS-SaNA) as a universal screening tool. In this article, they provide evidence of the psychometric properties of the assessment. Further, they illustrate advantages of situating administration at the beginning of the school year and prior to school-based assessments and suggest ways that information gleaned from the parent assessment may be used to identify parent concerns, coordinate home-school resources, and initiate proactive family and students. Regarding their study, first author Kevin Moore commented: Understandably, parents may have negative reactions to universal screening results if their child is labeled with a pejorative “disorder” or other anxiety-producing label. Moreover, behavior and academic screeners rarely assess student strengths, which makes collaboration with parents challenging. The PFS-SaNA avoids this common problem of universal screeners by allowing the use of non-clinical language coupled with the inclusion of parent concerns and priorities. We think by taking this proactive approach and capitalizing on family identified strengths and needs, we can increase the probability of collaborative engagement of parents earlier in the school year before problems intensify. Also, response cost of universal screening for school staff can be reduced by using parents rather than teachers as initial screeners.
Further Exploring the Expansion of SWPBIS
Implementation of SWPBIS has expanded widely throughout the United States in recent years. This expansion includes implementation in diverse educational settings. As some authors have noted, however, the model of SWPBIS implemented in typical school settings may differ when used in alternative settings. At the current time, limited literature has described exactly how implementation differs by setting type. Schelling and Harris begin to answer this question by examining implementation of SWPBIS in Centers serving students with low incidence disabilities across the state of Michigan. Center administrators completed a questionnaire reporting implementation of features of SWPBIS at the school-wide, non-classroom, classroom, and individual levels, and responded to open-ended questions designed to gather additional school specific information. In spite of the fact that administrators reported implementing SWPBIS in their Center, many of the features commonly seen in typical educational settings were not implemented. The findings suggest the need to explore the relevance and effectiveness of components of SWPBIS for students with divergent needs served in alternative settings. Amy Schelling commented further on the findings: The findings suggest data collected by Centers are not being used to evaluate student behavior or to develop and adjust training activities for students. The findings also suggest that although Centers have procedures in place to address emergency situations they have not clearly defined problem behaviors and consequences nor do they conduct regular assessments to identify students with chronic challenging behavior. Although Centers are engaged in some form of implementation of SWPBIS, respondents indicated the need for technical support related to effective interventions for students with low incidence disabilities, how best to collect and utilize data, and how to assess the fidelity of implementation in their schools. The findings highlight the need for professional development in these areas to improve the effectiveness of implementation of SWPBIS in Centers.
A Note From the Co-Editors
After consultation with our board of editors, reviewing statistics on downloads, and much deliberation, we have decided to discontinue What’s Inside—Highlights From This Issue. We believe the page space is better allocated to articles. The current issue will be the last that includes article previews.