Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

Fidelity of implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) procedures within schools is critical to the success of the program. Coaching has been suggested as one approach to helping ensure accuracy of implementation of SWPBIS plans. This study used a multiple baseline across participants design to examine the effects of coaching on elementary schools teachers’ implementation of Tier 1 SWPBIS with their general education students. After providing the coach with an initial training on the SWPBIS and coaching procedures, four elementary schoolteachers were provided with side-by-side coaching during whole-class group instruction. Results indicated that there was a functional relationship between coaching and improved SWPBIS fidelity scores. Implications for practice included the need to consider selecting an appropriate person to act as the coach, scheduling difficulties, and the inability to standardize the number of opportunities for teachers to demonstrate some of the skills based on variability in student performance. However, utilizing school personnel to act as SWPBIS coaches may be a viable option to build sustainability and integrity of SWPBIS procedures within schools.

As interest in proactive and systematic approaches to supporting positive student behavior grows, important questions remain about the ways in which special education staff and their students participate in school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). We report findings from a statewide study of 849 special educators addressing (a) their involvement in their school’s PBIS framework, (b) the ways their students with disabilities participate, (c) potential barriers to such participation, and (d) the topics and avenues through which they desire professional development. Special educators rarely participated in school-wide PBIS teams, reported variability in the extent to which their students with disabilities participated in aspects of the school’s framework, indicated that they implemented some features of the framework in their classroom more than others, and highlighted salient barriers to student involvement. The views and actions of special educators working primarily with students with low-incidence disabilities differed from those of teachers working with students with high-incidence disabilities. We discuss implications for research and practice aimed at enhancing the implementation and impact of school-wide PBIS on students with disabilities.

The relationship between school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS) and school-level academic achievement has not been established. Most experimental research has found little to no evidence that SWPBIS has a distal effect on school-level achievement. Yet, an underlying assumption of SWPBIS is that improving social behavior and reducing problem behavior increasingly exposes all students to classroom instruction and the opportunity for academic success. Therefore, we examined the average treatment effect of SWPBIS implemented with fidelity on the treated schools by leveraging 10 consecutive years of school-level academic achievement data. All elementary schools in Florida (~2,033 schools), including an average of 235 schools implementing SWPBIS with fidelity each year, were included in this study. We estimated a two-level mixed-effects regression model, with schools nested in districts across time, and modeled the percentage of students at or above grade-level benchmark on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) reading and mathematics. Results indicate that schools implementing SWPBIS with fidelity had statistically significantly more students at or above grade-level benchmarks, however the effect sizes were small. The results are discussed within the context of distal effects and the fact that few evidence-based academic interventions have demonstrated larger effects when experimentally evaluated.

Previous research suggests that Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) can reduce student disciplinary office referrals and out-of-school suspensions, especially when implemented with fidelity. Existing research is mixed as to whether PBIS also contributes to improvements in student achievement, but at least one study has found that PBIS leads to improvements in teachers’ perceptions of overall organizational health, an effect that may help facilitate improvements in student learning. This study uses the TELL (Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning) Kentucky survey to analyze teacher perceptions of their working conditions between PBIS and non-PBIS schools, and among schools varying in level of PBIS implementation fidelity. Furthermore, because the TELL Kentucky survey has been shown to predict increases in student achievement, this study examined the relationship between PBIS implementation and student test score outcomes. Teachers in PBIS schools reported higher levels of student and faculty understanding of behavioral expectations and a stronger atmosphere of professional trust and respect. Although there were no significant differences in student achievement levels between PBIS and non-PBIS schools, analysis did reveal that student academic outcomes were significantly higher at high- and medium-fidelity PBIS schools than low-fidelity PBIS schools. Significance, limitations, and implications for practice are discussed.

Functional behavior assessments (FBAs) and behavior intervention plans (BIPs) are critical components in the education of students with, or at risk for, emotional disturbance (ED). The purpose of this article is to compare the legal requirements with the professional requirements for FBAs and BIPs. The comparison is first according to the procedural dimension (e.g., the when and how questions) and then on the substantive dimension (the what question). The results reveal a dramatic difference between the legal requirements under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and the professional recommendations for best practice. Our recommendation for both scholars and practitioners is not to fuse or confuse these two levels: one representing the mandatory minimum and the other representing the professional desideratum. Rather, due differentiation provides a proper framework for proposed additions to federal and state laws, strategic opportunities for advocacy in the litigation process, and ample latitude for effective choices for prophylactic practice.