1. Tabetha Bernstein-Danis, Ph.D. Kutztown University
Successful Implementation for Tier 1 and Tier 2 School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Support: Sharing Survey Results
Tabetha Bernstein-Danis, Ph.D. Kutztown University
Kyleigh Ivory
Kutztown University

2. Defining SWPBIS: Try the Survey
Answer the following questions for yourself.
What is School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports? (This may be called “Response to Intervention for Behavior” or “Tiered Support for Behavior” in your district.)
Does your school implement SWPBIS?
Did you receive training for SWPBIS?
Was the training sufficient?

3. Overview of Research Site
Only middle school in a district with 5 schools (3 elementary, 1 middle, 1 high)
91% White, 4% Latino/a, 2% African-American/Black, 2% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1% 2 or more races
23% of students receive free or reduced lunch
No security guards or school resource officers
District claimed to have a SWPBIS model which was referred to as “Response to Intervention for Behavior”

4. Overview of Participants
18 teachers responded
67% prepared through traditional 4-year teacher preparation program; only 17% had alternative certification (remainder went through post-baccalaureate or Master’s preparation program)
Majority of teachers who responded had been teaching over 10 years, with many teachers having extensive teaching experience (several teachers with 20+ years)

5. Problem #1: Confusion about Implementation of SWPBIS
Respondents all taught in the same school.

6. Problem #2:Inconsistent Responses about Training

7. Problem #3: Training Not Considered Sufficient
It is important to note that only 5 of the 18 participants responded to this question.

8. Defining SWPBIS
“SWPBIS is a universal prevention strategy that aims to alter the school environment by creating improved systems (e.g., discipline, reinforcement, data management) and procedures (e.g., office referral, training, leadership) that promote positive change in staff behaviors, which subsequently alter student behaviors.” Bradshaw and Mitchell (2010)

9. Defining SWPBIS: PBIS OSEP Technical Assistance Center
“PBIS is a framework or approach for assisting school personnel in adopting and organizing evidence-based behavioral interventions into an integrated continuum that enhances academic and social behavior outcomes for all students.”

10. The Three Tiers of SWPBIS
Tier 3: Students with intensive needs – Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan
Tier 2: Small group instruction and intervention given to students who need additional support.
Tier 1: All students taught appropriate behavior, given clear expectations, and reinforcement is given for appropriate behaviors.

11. Problem #4: Incomplete and Inconsistent Definitions of SWPBIS
“Demonstrating the behaviors desired rather than going right to punishment”
This seems to focus on Tier 1 – focus on teaching appropriate behavior for all students.
“Reward for positive behavior, paying more attention to positive behavior than negative behavior”
Again, this is Tier 1.
“Positive Behavior Support Plans”
This is a vague definition and seems to denote the overall approach without defining it.

12. Problem #4: Incomplete and Inconsistent Definitions of SWPBIS
“It is following a series of steps to determine the cause of student behaviors. Once causes are determined, it is also used to help provide a structured and supportive way to intervene with student behavior. “
This seems like the description of a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). That is Tier 3.
“A plan for helping students with behavioral needs”
This could be Tier 2 to Tier 3.
“Corrective action.”
Vague – seems to imply Tier 2 to Tier 3 more targeted or intensive supports.

13. Problem #4: Incomplete and Inconsistent Definitions of SWPBIS
“A leveled system of support for target behaviors”
Closer – Implies a continuum
“Levels of consequences or actions taken by staff in order of behavior frequency or severity.”
Implies a continuum but seems focused on punishment, which is not SWPBIS
“Steps/Tiers were students are placed due to their behaviors with additional supports as needed”
Demonstrates tiers and additional support offered for students who have greater needs
“A proactive plan to teach students to make good choices and help them understand the connection between choices and consequences when they make a bad choice”
This is closer – implies teaching appropriate behavior and understanding the process of making choices

14. Discussion: Compare to Your Own SWPBIS Definitions
Turn and Talk
How close were the participants’ definitions to your own?
How would you revise your definition based on the presentation so far?
Be prepared to share with the whole group.

15. Teacher Decision-Making: Try the Survey
For the following situations, respond with one of the following answers and be ready to explain why: a. Handle it myself or with other non- administrative staff in the classroom b. Contact a school counselor c. Call an administrator d. Call a security guard or police officer

16. Teacher Decision-Making: Try the Survey
Q18: A student has an objective weapon (e.g., gun, knife, pepper spray) or claims to have an objective weapon.
Q19: A student has an object that could potentially be used as a weapon however has not stated that they will use it as a weapon (e.g., hammer, screwdriver, pocket knife).
Q20: One or more students threaten to engage in a physical fight.
Q21: A student causes major property damage (e.g., purposely breaks a window).
Q29: A student refuses to complete a standardized test.
Q30: A student displays disruptive but not dangerous behavior during a standardized test.

17. Teacher Decision-Making: Try the Survey
Q22: A student cause’s minor property damage (e.g., rips a book).
Q23: A student uses profanity against you or another adult staff member.
Q24: A student uses general profanity not directed at a person
Q25: A student refuses to do work or participate in class.
Q26: A student displays a "disrespectful" attitude towards you or other adult staff members.
Q27: A student refuses to stay seated and gets up to walk around or leave the room without permission.
Q28: A student is displaying disruptive behavior that impedes the learning process but does not present danger (e.g., speaking without being called on, having side conversations, texting in class).

18. For these behaviors, the majority of teachers surveyed said they would call in an administrator.
Q18: A student has an objective weapon (e.g., gun, knife, pepper spray) or claims to have an objective weapon.
Q19: A student has an object that could potentially be used as a weapon however has not stated that they will use it as a weapon (e.g., hammer, screwdriver, pocket knife).
Q20: One or more students threaten to engage in a physical fight.
Q21: A student causes major property damage (e.g., purposely breaks a window).
Q29: A student refuses to complete a standardized test.
Q30: A student displays disruptive but not dangerous behavior during a standardized test.

19. Most teachers surveyed would handle these behaviors on their own in the classroom.
Q22: A student cause’s minor property damage (e.g., rips a book).
Q23: A student uses profanity against you or another adult staff member.
Q24: A student uses general profanity not directed at a person
Q25: A student refuses to do work or participate in class.
Q26: A student displays a "disrespectful" attitude towards you or other adult staff members.
Q27: A student refuses to stay seated and gets up to walk around or leave the room without permission.
Q28: A student is displaying disruptive behavior that impedes the learning process but does not present danger (e.g., speaking without being called on, having side conversations, texting in class).

20. Discussion: Teacher Decision-Making
How do the participants’ responses match up with your own?
What seems to be the difference between the behaviors teachers would handle themselves and the behaviors for which teachers would call for help?

21. Summary of Findings
Although the school claims to implement SWPBIS, many teachers were unsure how to define this approach and even disagreed in some cases about whether or not it was implemented.
Most teachers did not feel they received adequate training.
For all questions where respondents stated they would contact a school administrator, some level of possible “physical harm” was present (including major property damage).

22. Summary of Findings
The only questions where the possibility of physical harm was not present that would lead to most teachers calling for an administrator pertained to any behaviors during standardized testing.
Teachers generally felt comfortable handling behaviors that were disruptive but not dangerous, off-task behaviors, and refusals to do work.
It should be noted that because most of the teachers in the school had many years of experience, there may be a likelihood that they were more comfortable handling most behaviors in the classroom due to experience rather than SWPBIS training.

23. Next Steps
Recruit more schools to participate, including districts with school resource officers and/or security; districts with greater diversity in the student population; and schools that include teachers who are less experienced.
Share findings with school and district administrators to discuss potential areas for improvement. Our goal is to partner with schools and help them use this data to strengthen SWPBIS at their sites.
Collaborate with this school and any future potential school partners to create a school-specific approach for professional development.

24. Our Guidance: PBIS Center Model for Professional Development
Data Collected and Analyzed
Outcomes/Objectives Established
Effective Practices or Interventions Selected
Systems Implemented to Ensure Practitioners Have Necessary Skills
Sugai and Horner (2009)

25. Questions?
Tabetha Bernstein-Danis Kyleigh Ivory