cooperatively). Additionally, the school team sets up an environment where students are more likely to succeed and to engage in prosocial behaviors (and learning) rather than problematic behaviors. The language adults use is geared toward the expectations (for example, “When we listen to others, that’s a way of being respectful”), structures can change in the environment (such as adjusted schedules or a modified layout of a common area), and the ratio of feedback for appropriate behavior to redirects for misbehavior increases as students are acknowledged often for displaying prosocial behavior. This differs starkly from approaches that focus on within-child problems, where the focus is only on students and adjusting their behaviors. Because of its focus on prosocial skills and the setting in which those skills occur, SWPBIS impacts the school’s overall climate, culture, and safety. In turn, students experience more positive social outcomes, develop lifelong skills, and face improved academic learning opportunities (McKevitt & Braaksma, 2008; Sugai & Horner, 2009).
“PBIS is the foundation for our school community; not only does it bring students and staff together; but it also incorporates families. Using PBIS helps us to consistently see students actively engaged in all aspects of their school day. When students are aware of the expectations set for them, they consistently rise to meet them. This system helped us create an uplifting environment in school where students and teachers alike feel successful.”
—Nikki Matthews, fourth-grade education teacher, Walterville Elementary School, Springfield, Oregon
(personal communication, May 13, 2016)
Next, we will delve into the research base for SWPBIS, its theoretical background, its four key elements, and the Problem-Solving Model.
Research Base for SWPBIS
To date, over twenty-one thousand schools in the United States use SWPBIS (National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports [NTACP-BIS], n.d.). Behind SWPBIS is a long history of effective results. In fact, Robert Horner, George Sugai, and Timothy Lewis (2015) provided a list of over one hundred references that have explored the effects of SWPBIS, including evaluation studies and randomized controlled studies. We summarize some of the results here.
The implementation of SWPBIS is associated with decreases in office discipline referrals and instances of problem behavior (Algozzine et al., 2008; Algozzine, Wang, et al., 2012; Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Curtis, Van Horne, Robertson, & Karvonen, 2010; Horner et al., 2009; Muscott, Mann, & LeBrun, 2008), decreases in both in-school and out-of-school suspensions (Bradshaw et al., 2010; 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
|
